Citation
Hemispheric differences in emotional psychophysiology

Material Information

Title:
Hemispheric differences in emotional psychophysiology
Creator:
Slomine, Beth S., 1967-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
vii, 263 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Anticipation ( jstor )
Electromyography ( jstor )
Emotional expression ( jstor )
Emotional states ( jstor )
Experimentation ( jstor )
Facial expressions ( jstor )
Heart rate ( jstor )
Hemispheres ( jstor )
Lesions ( jstor )
T tests ( jstor )
Cerebral Cortex -- physiology ( mesh )
Emotions -- physiology ( mesh )
Galvanic Skin Response ( mesh )
Models, Neurological ( mesh )
Models, Psychological ( mesh )
Models, Theoretical ( mesh )
Psychophysiology ( mesh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1995.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 246-262).
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Beth S. Slomine.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
49350729 ( OCLC )
ocm49350729
0028030560 ( ALEPH )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

E2HQ406O7_JKH2PD.xml

AA00012895_00001.pdf

AA00012895_00001_0248.txt

AA00012895_00001_0014.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0236.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0148.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0198.txt

AA00012895_00001_0202.txt

AA00012895_00001_0181.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0126.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0013.txt

AA00012895_00001_0253.txt

AA00012895_00001_0088.txt

AA00012895_00001_0135.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0008.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0011.txt

AA00012895_00001_0167.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0196.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0001.txt

AA00012895_00001_0249.txt

AA00012895_00001_0093.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0099.txt

AA00012895_00001_0128.txt

AA00012895_00001_0132.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0160.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0229.txt

AA00012895_00001_0059.txt

AA00012895_00001_0008.txt

AA00012895_00001_0207.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0051.txt

AA00012895_00001_0215.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0005.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0105.txt

AA00012895_00001_0184.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0017.txt

AA00012895_00001_0083.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0225.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0110.txt

AA00012895_00001_0156.txt

AA00012895_00001_0121.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0072.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0176.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0127.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0154.txt

AA00012895_00001_0171.txt

AA00012895_00001_0108.txt

AA00012895_00001_0017.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0039.txt

AA00012895_00001_0220.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0124.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0097.txt

AA00012895_00001_0045.txt

AA00012895_00001_0188.txt

AA00012895_00001_0115.txt

AA00012895_00001_0228.txt

AA00012895_00001_0037.txt

AA00012895_00001_0260.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0231.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0030.txt

AA00012895_00001_0252.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0209.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0241.txt

AA00012895_00001_0070.txt

AA00012895_00001_0197.txt

AA00012895_00001_0162.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0021.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0235.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0223.txt

AA00012895_00001_0062.txt

AA00012895_00001_0086.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0031.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0120.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0244.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0161.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0073.txt

AA00012895_00001_0158.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0245.txt

AA00012895_00001_0160.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0117.txt

AA00012895_00001_0002.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0096.txt

AA00012895_00001_0258.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0215.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0123.txt

AA00012895_00001_0198.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0144.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0157.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0240.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0197.txt

AA00012895_00001_0241.txt

AA00012895_00001_0043.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0003.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0004.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0055.txt

AA00012895_00001_0201.txt

AA00012895_00001_0100.txt

AA00012895_00001_0054.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0268.txt

AA00012895_00001_0103.txt

AA00012895_00001_0094.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0270.txt

AA00012895_00001_0267.txt

AA00012895_00001_0116.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0046.txt

AA00012895_00001_0049.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0069.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0261.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0007.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0035.txt

AA00012895_00001_0262.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0217.txt

AA00012895_00001_0177.txt

AA00012895_00001_0136.txt

AA00012895_00001_0149.txt

AA00012895_00001_0123.txt

AA00012895_00001_0178.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0189.txt

AA00012895_00001_0046.txt

AA00012895_00001_0089.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0208.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0184.txt

AA00012895_00001_0157.txt

AA00012895_00001_0056.txt

AA00012895_00001_0150.txt

AA00012895_00001_0091.txt

AA00012895_00001_0169.txt

AA00012895_00001_0206.txt

AA00012895_00001_0137.txt

AA00012895_00001_0257.txt

AA00012895_00001_0111.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0010.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0257.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0200.txt

AA00012895_00001_0078.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0238.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0188.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0218.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0142.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0098.txt

AA00012895_00001_0087.txt

AA00012895_00001_0068.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0074.txt

AA00012895_00001_0259.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0260.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0227.txt

AA00012895_00001_0110.txt

AA00012895_00001_0216.txt

AA00012895_00001_0050.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0054.txt

AA00012895_00001_0029.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0038.txt

AA00012895_00001_0270.txt

AA00012895_00001_0024.txt

AA00012895_00001_0107.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0204.txt

AA00012895_00001_0026.txt

AA00012895_00001_0119.txt

AA00012895_00001_0047.txt

AA00012895_00001_0264.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0050.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0045.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0091.txt

AA00012895_00001_0254.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0107.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0043.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0044.txt

AA00012895_00001_0028.txt

AA00012895_00001_0048.txt

E2HQ406O7_JKH2PD_xml.txt

AA00012895_00001_0096.txt

AA00012895_00001_0147.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0052.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0088.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0165.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0016.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0033.txt

AA00012895_00001_0223.txt

AA00012895_00001_0034.txt

AA00012895_00001_0247.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0192.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0178.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0162.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0108.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0175.txt

AA00012895_00001_0124.txt

AA00012895_00001_0244.txt

AA00012895_00001_0081.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0121.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0109.txt

AA00012895_00001_0073.txt

AA00012895_00001_0003.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0020.txt

AA00012895_00001_0165.txt

AA00012895_00001_0189.txt

AA00012895_00001_0019.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0067.txt

AA00012895_00001_0133.txt

AA00012895_00001_0122.txt

AA00012895_00001_0237.txt

AA00012895_00001_0273.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0000.txt

AA00012895_00001_0106.txt

AA00012895_00001_0044.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0150.txt

AA00012895_00001_0036.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0256.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0076.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0079.txt

AA00012895_00001_0139.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0230.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0083.txt

AA00012895_00001_0030.txt

AA00012895_00001_0195.txt

AA00012895_00001_0120.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0062.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0095.txt

AA00012895_00001_0072.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0233.txt

AA00012895_00001_0236.txt

AA00012895_00001_0099.txt

AA00012895_00001_0238.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0034.txt

AA00012895_00001_0204.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0058.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0139.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0254.txt

AA00012895_00001_0023.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0092.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0130.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0056.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0249.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0201.txt

AA00012895_00001_0063.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0172.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0113.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0059.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0090.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0216.txt

AA00012895_00001_0066.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0170.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0174.txt

AA00012895_00001_0142.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0040.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0068.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0207.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0187.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0116.txt

AA00012895_00001_0205.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0037.txt

AA00012895_00001_0095.txt

AA00012895_00001_0058.txt

AA00012895_00001_0239.txt

AA00012895_00001_0064.txt

AA00012895_00001_0209.txt

AA00012895_00001_0245.txt

AA00012895_00001_0185.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0190.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0168.txt

AA00012895_00001_0193.txt

AA00012895_00001_0104.txt

AA00012895_00001_0007.txt

AA00012895_00001_0151.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0164.txt

AA00012895_00001_0232.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0025.txt

AA00012895_00001_0234.txt

AA00012895_00001_0055.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0022.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0082.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0171.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0191.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0060.txt

AA00012895_00001_0221.txt

AA00012895_00001_0227.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0029.txt

AA00012895_00001_0032.txt

AA00012895_00001_0112.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0032.txt

AA00012895_00001_0033.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0186.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0080.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0226.txt

AA00012895_00001_0166.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0262.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0137.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0251.txt

AA00012895_00001_0085.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0006.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0232.txt

AA00012895_00001_0077.txt

AA00012895_00001_0060.txt

AA00012895_00001_0246.txt

AA00012895_00001_0263.txt

AA00012895_00001_0168.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0166.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0193.txt

AA00012895_00001_0118.txt

AA00012895_00001_0101.txt

AA00012895_00001_0148.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0194.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0135.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0002.txt

AA00012895_00001_0012.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0258.txt

AA00012895_00001_0255.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0049.txt

AA00012895_00001_0155.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0075.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0202.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0048.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0133.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0163.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0084.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0228.txt

AA00012895_00001_0243.txt

AA00012895_00001_0015.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0128.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0255.txt

AA00012895_00001_0173.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0158.txt

AA00012895_00001_0164.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0265.txt

AA00012895_00001_0041.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0028.txt

AA00012895_00001_0090.txt

AA00012895_00001_0097.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0246.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0185.txt

AA00012895_00001_0074.txt

AA00012895_00001_0018.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0086.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0065.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0064.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0119.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0156.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0203.txt

AA00012895_00001_0051.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0140.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0122.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0237.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0234.txt

AA00012895_00001_0010.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0041.txt

AA00012895_00001_0102.txt

AA00012895_00001_0199.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0112.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0134.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0155.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0053.txt

AA00012895_00001_0092.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0222.txt

AA00012895_00001_0080.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0101.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0210.txt

AA00012895_00001_0038.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0047.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0221.txt

AA00012895_00001_0105.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0132.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0248.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0136.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0213.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0183.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0264.txt

AA00012895_00001_0179.txt

AA00012895_00001_0131.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0057.txt

AA00012895_00001_0020.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0206.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0253.txt

AA00012895_00001_0235.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0015.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0180.txt

AA00012895_00001_0016.txt

AA00012895_00001_0031.txt

AA00012895_00001_0109.txt

AA00012895_00001_0226.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0252.txt

AA00012895_00001_0212.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0141.txt

AA00012895_00001_0027.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0115.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0061.txt

AA00012895_00001_0006.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0250.txt

AA00012895_00001_0217.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0181.txt

AA00012895_00001_0233.txt

AA00012895_00001_0040.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0063.txt

AA00012895_00001_0186.txt

AA00012895_00001_0231.txt

AA00012895_00001_0057.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0081.txt

AA00012895_00001_0196.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0151.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0147.txt

AA00012895_00001_0183.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0125.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0179.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0182.txt

AA00012895_00001_0076.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0042.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0077.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0271.txt

AA00012895_00001_0218.txt

AA00012895_00001_0268.txt

AA00012895_00001_0009.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0239.txt

AA00012895_00001_0224.txt

AA00012895_00001_0163.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0087.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0104.txt

AA00012895_00001_0039.txt

AA00012895_00001_0182.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0129.txt

AA00012895_00001_0153.txt

AA00012895_00001_0256.txt

AA00012895_00001_0242.txt

AA00012895_00001_0269.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0195.txt

AA00012895_00001_0141.txt

AA00012895_00001_0225.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0263.txt

AA00012895_00001_0011.txt

AA00012895_00001_0175.txt

AA00012895_00001_0129.txt

AA00012895_00001_0013.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0111.txt

AA00012895_00001_0265.txt

AA00012895_00001_0213.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0089.txt

AA00012895_00001_0113.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0138.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0243.txt

AA00012895_00001_0146.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0026.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0220.txt

AA00012895_00001_0230.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0152.txt

AA00012895_00001_0174.txt

AA00012895_00001_0125.txt

AA00012895_00001_0154.txt

AA00012895_00001_0203.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0219.txt

AA00012895_00001_0067.txt

AA00012895_00001_0200.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0019.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0259.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0159.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0114.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0103.txt

AA00012895_00001_0219.txt

AA00012895_00001_0271.txt

AA00012895_00001_0144.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0102.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0009.txt

AA00012895_00001_0071.txt

AA00012895_00001_0004.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0267.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0066.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0027.txt

AA00012895_00001_0138.txt

AA00012895_00001_0211.txt

AA00012895_00001_0180.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0036.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0199.txt

AA00012895_00001_0240.txt

AA00012895_00001_0145.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0211.txt

AA00012895_00001_0022.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0272.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0145.txt

AA00012895_00001_0075.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0146.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0242.txt

AA00012895_00001_0061.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0070.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0173.txt

AA00012895_00001_0127.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0106.txt

AA00012895_00001_0053.txt

AA00012895_00001_0025.txt

AA00012895_00001_0190.txt

AA00012895_00001_0098.txt

AA00012895_00001_0170.txt

AA00012895_00001_0143.txt

AA00012895_00001_0191.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0212.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0018.txt

AA00012895_00001_0229.txt

AA00012895_00001_0251.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0131.txt

AA00012895_00001_0021.txt

AA00012895_00001_0210.txt

AA00012895_00001_0001.txt

AA00012895_00001_0272.txt

AA00012895_00001_0172.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0100.txt

AA00012895_00001_0069.txt

AA00012895_00001_0084.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0214.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0149.txt

AA00012895_00001_pdf.txt

AA00012895_00001_0082.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0177.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0085.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0266.txt

AA00012895_00001_0266.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0247.txt

AA00012895_00001_0152.txt

AA00012895_00001_0005.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0224.txt

AA00012895_00001_0222.txt

AA00012895_00001_0214.txt

AA00012895_00001_0161.txt

AA00012895_00001_0159.txt

AA00012895_00001_0130.txt

AA00012895_00001_0065.txt

AA00012895_00001_0042.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0094.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0093.txt

AA00012895_00001_0114.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0024.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0118.txt

AA00012895_00001_0187.txt

AA00012895_00001_0261.txt

AA00012895_00001_0208.txt

AA00012895_00001_0250.txt

AA00012895_00001_0117.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0167.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0071.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0153.txt

AA00012895_00001_0126.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0205.txt

AA00012895_00001_0192.txt

AA00012895_00001_0052.txt

AA00012895_00001_0176.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0014.txt

AA00012895_00001_0194.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0023.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0012.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0078.txt

AA00012895_00001_0035.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0269.txt

AA00012895_00001_0079.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0143.txt

AA00012895_00001_0140.txt

hemisphericdiffe00slom_0169.txt

AA00012895_00001_0134.txt


Full Text
















HEMISPHERIC DIFFERENCES IN EMOTIONAL PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY


By

BETH S. SLOMINE
















A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1995














ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


First, I want to thank my Chairperson, Dr. Dawn Bowers,

for teaching me the skills needed to become a competent

researcher and writer. I also want to thank Dr. Russell

Bauer for explaining psychophysiological methodology to me

in a way that I could easily understand. I am also grateful

to Dr. Heilman for being available to answer my questions

about neurology, help me to choose patients, and map out the

CT/MRI scans. I would like to thank my other committee

members, Drs. Bradley, Rao, and Fennell for contributing

their time and expertise to this project.

Additionally, I would like to thank the many people who

provided technical support for this project. Samel Celebi

wrote all the computer porgrams and set up the interface

between hardware and software. Barbara Haas taught me

appropriate electrode placement and forced me to use an

impedence meter. I am also grateful to those individuals at

the West Roxbury VAMC who helped me to finish this project.

Bill Milberg provided me with the time and computer

facilities needed to conduct data reduction and analyses.

Patrick Kilduff patiently helped me to reduce the tremendous

amount of data I had collected. Also, Gina McGlinchy








assisted me with my statistics and never got angry as she

showed me the same steps over and over again.

I would also like to thank the research assistants who

helped me with this project. Hillary Webb, Kim Roberts, and

Brian Howland all helped in heartrate reduction. I would

especially like to thank Scott Lebowitz who worked

diligently on many aspects of the project from subject

recruitment to data management.

I would also like to thank those individuals and

organizations who helped me to find participants for this

study, including Beth McCauley; Anne Rottman, M.D.; Laura

Hodges, P.T.; Orlando Stroke Club, Golden Gators; and the

other seniors groups from local churches who allowed me to

recruit subjects through their organization. And, of

course, I would like to thank all of those individuals who

spent the many hours required to participate in this

project.

Lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends who

supported me and attempted to calm me down through all of my

catastrophizing over the last three years.


iii

















TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.........................

ABSTRACT .................................

CHAPTERS

1 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...........

Theories of Emotion..................
Hemispheric Assymetry of Emotion....
Emotional Psychophysiology..........
Critical Issues .....................

2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM...........

Overview of Experimental Design.....
Hypotheses and Predicitions .........

3 METHODS.............................

Subjects.............................
Baseline Evaluation.................
Experiment 1.........................
Experiment 2 ........................
Design Issues .......................

4 RESULTS......... ....................

Group Data ..........................
Subgroup Data .......................
Individual Case Studies..............

5 DISCUSSION .........................

Differential Responding in Normal
Subjects.........................
Group Differences in Emotional
Responding ......................
Global versus Bivalent Models of
Emotion..........................
Neuroanatomic Correlates.............
Limitations of the Study..............
Future Directions.....................

iv


page

..... ii

..... vi


...1

...2
..15
..38
..51

..56

..59
S.60

..69

S.69
S.73
S.74
..83
..85

..88

..88
.134
.137

.145


..147

..155

..159
..161
..163
..165









APPENDICES

A PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASURES.................167

Self-Assessment Manikin.................167
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule...167

B DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION................. 169

C STATISTICAL INFORMATION................185

REFERENCES.................................... 246

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................263














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

HEMISPHERIC DIFFERENCES IN EMOTIONAL PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY

BY

Beth S. Slomine


August 1995



Chairperson: Dawn Bowers
Cochairperson: Russell M. Bauer
Major Department: Clinical & Health Psychology

Two theories have been proposed to explain the

organization of emotions within the cortical hemispheres.

According to the global right hemisphere model, the right

hemisphere takes a predominant role in modulating emotions.

Based on the global theory, patients with right hemisphere

damage (RHD) have a deficit in emotional processing of all

emotions. According to the other hemispheric theory of

emotion, the bivalent model, the right hemisphere modulates

negative emotions and the left hemisphere modulates positive

emotions. This model predicts that RHD patients would be

deficient in emotional processing of negative emotions,

whereas patients with left hemisphere damage (LHD) would be

impaired in processing positive emotions.








In this study, emotional experience as measured by

autonomic responding, facial muscle activity, and verbal

report was examined in 12 patients with RHD, 12 patients

with LHD, and 24 normal control subjects (NCS) during

anticipation of shock and reward. Results revealed that

during the shock condition, RHD subjects displayed a deficit

in skin conductance responding compared with the NCS, but

not compared with the LHD subjects. None of autonomic or

facial muscle variables differentiated the reward from the

control condition during the reward task. These results are

discussed in light of the global and bivalent theories of

emotion as well as neuroanatomic correlates of electrodermal

activity.


vii














CHAPTER 1
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

Patients with unilateral brain damage have been used to

investigate hemispheric contribution to emotional

perception, voluntary expression, and to a lesser extent

"experience" as indirectly assessed through physiologic

arousal, overt behavior, and verbal report. Although some

studies have suggested that differences in post-stroke mood

occur following right hemisphere damage (RHD) and left

hemisphere damage (LHD), few studies have assessed brief

emotional experience while measuring psychophysiological and

behavioral indices of emotion in these patients. Moreover,

when emotional experience has been studied using

physiological indices of emotion, patients needed to decode

emotional stimuli, which may be problematic for some RHD

patients. Additionally, no study to date has employed

facial EMG when examining emotional experience in

unilaterally damaged patients. In the current project,

stroke patients with left or right hemisphere lesions

participated in two experiments designed to examine specific

deficits in pleasant and unpleasant emotional experience as

a function of unilateral brain damage. Both physiological








2

responding, facial behavior, and verbal report were measured

during "in vivo" affective situations.

Before discussing the experiments further, a brief

overview of the literature is provided. The review includes

prominent theories of emotion which have stemmed from the

works of James (1884/1922), Lange (1922), and Cannon (1927).

Moreover, theories of hemispheric specialization of emotion

are provided. Specifically, two predominant

neuropsychological theories of emotion are explored: (1)

the global right hemisphere theory which states that the

right hemisphere is responsible for affective processing;

and (2) the bivalent view which conceptualizes the right

hemisphere as predominant for negative emotions and the left

hemisphere as predominant for positive emotions. In

addition, studies of hemispheric differences in emotional

evaluation, expression, arousal, and mood are discussed.

Lastly, an overview of emotional psychophysiology is

presented.

Theories of Emotion

The quest to understand emotion has stimulated the

development of many theories and much empirical data over

the past century. According to Kleinginna and Kleinginna

(1981) the numerous definitions of emotion complicate

research in emotion. After an extensive review of emotional

definitions, they classified psychological definitions of

emotions into 11 non-mutually exclusive categories on the








3

basis of emotional phenomenon and theoretical issues. They

concluded that a definition of emotion should be broad

enough to include significant aspects of emotion, but still

be able to distinguish emotion from other psychological

phenomenon. They suggested the following definition:

Emotion is a complex set of interactions among
subjective and objective factors, mediated by
neural/hormonal systems, which can (a) give rise to
affective experiences such as feelings of arousal,
pleasure/displeasure; (b) generate cognitive processes
such as emotionally relevant perceptual effects,
appraisals, labeling processes; (c) activate widespread
physiological adjustments to the arousing conditions;
and (d) lead to behavior that is often, but not always,
expressive, goal directed, and adaptive. (p. 355)

Like the numerous definitions of emotions, there are many

theories of emotion. These differ in their

conceptualization of emotional experience and the role of

cognition in emotional experience. A few prominent emotion

theories are described below.

James-Lanqe versus Cannon Debate

James (1884/1922) and Lange (1922) were the first to

challenge the common sense view that perception of an event

was followed by the experience of emotion. James stated

that "...the bodily changes follow the perception of the

exciting fact, and that our feelings of the same changes as

they occur is the emotion" (p.13). James proposed that, in

order to experience emotion, one must simultaneously exhibit

physiological and expressive changes, such as tensed muscles

and quickened heart rate during fear. Specifically, the

James-Lange theory states that perception occurs when an








4

object stimulates one or more sense organs relaying afferent

impulses into the cortex. Next, cortical efferents send

information to skeletal and visceral musculature producing

complex changes. Lastly, sensory information from the

affected musculature is projected back to the cortex.

Perception of this sensory information produces the

experience of emotion. In the early 20th century, the

James-Lange theory predominated the study of emotion (Izard,

1977).

In 1927, Cannon presented five criticisms of James-

Lange's hypotheses that perception of autonomic/visceral

changes are responsible for the experience of emotion.

First, Cannon cited evidence that spinal cord transactions

in dogs, in which the sensations of the viscera were

separated from the CNS, did not alter emotional experience.

Additionally, he stated that cats who had their entire

sympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system removed

showed all the manifestations of rage when presented with a

dog (i.e., hissing, growling, and retraction of the ears)

except the cats did not raise the hairs on their backs.

Second, Cannon pointed out that the same visceral changes

occur during sympathetic arousal even though different

emotion states may be experienced. Additionally,

sympathetic arousal produces similar changes in non-

emotional states such as fever or exposure to cold. Third,

Cannon argued that the viscera are relatively insensitive










structures and changes are often not experienced

consciously. Fourth, he stated that visceral changes are

slow and thus, cannot be a source of emotion. Fifth, he

claimed that producing artificial visceral changes does not

produce affect. He used adrenalin as an example stating

that adrenalin produces bodily changes that are not

accompanied by affective states. He concluded that the

sensation of visceral responses cannot produce affect.

Cannon hypothesized that "emotional expression results

from action of subcortical centers" (p.115). Cannon cited

studies in which various types of decorticate animals

displayed abnormal affective responses, whereas animals with

hypothalamotomies failed to display affective behavior.

Consequently, Cannon concluded that the cerebral cortex

normally inhibits thalamic activation. He purported that

during normal emotional experience sensory information

arrives at the cortex and is projected to the hypothalamus

releasing it from cortical control. Cannon proposed that

hypothalamic activation relays information to somatic

musculature and smooth musculature of the viscera to produce

characteristic manifestations of emotion. Simultaneously,

the hypothalamus projects to cortex which produces the

conscious awareness of emotion. According to Cannon

muscular changes, visceral changes, and conscious experience

of emotion all occur simultaneously. The result is intense










emotional experience accompanied by behavior and

physiological indices of emotion.

Later scientists elaborated on Cannon's theory. Papez

(1937) postulated that a circuit of emotion exists that

relays information to the hypothalamus from the anterior

thalamus, cingulate cortex, and hippocampus. He posited

that emotion originates in the hippocampal formation and is

relayed through the above circuit to the cortex. He

described the cingulate gyrus as the receptive cortical

region for emotion. About a decade later, MacLean (1949,

1952) described the limbic system as a group of

phylogenetically old cortical structures that are involved

in emotion.

More recently, LeDoux (1989) has argued that emotion

and cognition are mediated by separate though interacting

neural systems. According to LeDoux, the amygdala is the

major component of the brain's affective processing system,

whereas the hippocampus is critically involved in cognitive

processing. Both affective and cognitive computations can

occur without conscious awareness. According to LeDoux,

affective computations occur via thalamo-amygdala

projections which process the affective significance of

simple sensory cues, whereas the cortico-amygdala pathway

processes complex affective stimuli. The thalamo-amygdala

projections are adaptive because this pathway often leads

directly to motor responses with brief processing time,










i.e., fleeing from a dangerous snake. LeDoux proposed that

the amygdala receives exteroceptive sensory, interoceptive

sensory, and neural input. In addition, LeDoux (1984)

explains that sensory information from the peripheral

nervous system feeds back to the amygdala to intensify

amygdala excitation and increase the duration and intensity

of the experience of emotion.

LeDoux suggested that the amygdala performs the

functions that Cannon (1927) and Papez (1937) thought

belonged to the hypothalamus. Together, Cannon, Papez, and

LeDoux challenged the James-Lange Theory in hypothesizing

that emotional experience can be generalized in the brain

without the participation of the peripheral nervous system.

However, none of these theories discuss the differing roles

that the right and left cerebral hemispheres may play in

modulating emotional behavior.

Appraisal Theories

Other theorists have attempted to address Cannon's

criticism of autonomic feedback proposed by James and Lange.

Russell (1927/1961) stated that cognition as well as

physiological feedback compose the experience of emotion.

Within the past few decades, some theorists have viewed

emotion as a phenomenon developing from cognitive appraisal

of an event, situation, or condition. Arnold (1960)

described emotion as the nonrational judgement of an object

which follows perception and appraisal. Schacter and Singer










(1962) proposed that physiological arousal along with

cognitive appraisal are both essential for emotion to

result. They suggested that some event or condition creates

physiological arousal which is combined with evaluation of

the event or condition (cognitive appraisal) to lead to the

experience of emotion.

Central to appraisal theories is the view that the

experience of any emotion (i.e., joy, anger, fear) involves

the same physiological arousal, but different cognitive

appraisals. Lazarus and Averill (1972) explained that

emotion results from appraisal of stimuli and the

formulation of a response. In their view, appraisal reduces

and organizes stimulus input to a specific concept, (e.g., a

threat). Lazarus and Averill also asserted that personal

psychological structure and social norms also influence

appraisal. Most importantly, they concluded that appraisal

determines the specific emotional experience. For example,

anger has been associated with the perception of goal

obstacles, whereas fear is associated with perceived

uncertainty about and unpleasant situation (Ellsworth &

Smith, 1988). However, these theorists place little or no

emphasis on neural hardware which might underlie or

contribute to appraisal.

Differential Emotion Theory

The Differential Emotion Theory was developed by

Tomkins (1962, 1963) who proposed that awareness of










proprioceptive feedback from facial muscles constitutes the

experience of emotion. According to Tomkins, emotion-

specific innate programs for groups of facial expressions

are stored in subcortical centers. Tomkins hypothesized

that once an emotion has been activated, facial feedback is

provided to the cortex. Additionally, Tomkins argued that

it is the facial feedback that initiates visceral

activation.

Differing slightly from Tomkins, Izard (1977) argued

that emotion involves three components; neural activity or

the density of neural firing per unit time, striate muscle

feedback to the brain, and subjective experience. Izard

posited that each component can be dissociated from the

others, but that the three are normally interdependent.

Specifically, according to Izard, internal or external

stimuli affect the gradient of neural stimulation in the

limbic system and sensory cortex. Information from these

areas are relayed to the hypothalamus which plays a role in

determining the facial expression to be effected. From the

hypothalamus, impulses are relayed to the basal ganglia

where the neural message for facial expression is mediated

by motor cortex. Impulses from motor cortex, via cranial

nerve VII lead to the specific facial expression. Cranial

nerve V receives sensory input from the face and projects,

via the posterior hypothalamus, to sensory cortex. It is








10

the cortical integration of facial expression feedback that

generates subjective experience of emotion.

Proponents of the Differential Emotion Theory have

conceptualized a certain number of fundamental emotion

categories which are comprised of specific phenomenological

characteristics, expressive responses, and physiological

patterns. Darwin (1872) was one of the first to discuss his

observations of the expression of discrete emotions. He

described many emotions which he viewed as having

corresponding facial expressions which are universally

displayed and recognized by humans cross culturally.

According to Izard (1977) there are 10 fundamental emotions

such as happiness, sadness, anger, fear, and disgust.

The concept of discrete emotions developed mostly from

direct observation and study of facial expressions.

Fridlund, Ekman, and Oster (1987) reviewed the literature on

facial expressions including phylogenetic, cross-cultural,

and developmental research. They determined that there is

much support for discrete emotions. Their conclusions,

based on the literature, are as follows: (1) phylogenetic

studies have shown that many nonhuman primates show a

variety of differentiated facial patterns and similar facial

patterns have been observed among human and nonhuman

primates; (2) cross-cultural studies have revealed that

members of different cultures display the same facial

expressions and use analogous emotion labels when










identifying the underlying emotions of posed expressions;

and (3) developmental research has indicated that facial

musculature is fully formed and functional at birth and

infants display many facial expressions similar to adult

expressions. Also, infants demonstrate differential

responses to facial expressions by 3 months of age and have

the capacity to imitate facial movements within the first

few days of life.

One problem not addressed by the differential emotions

theorists is whether spontaneous experience of these

emotions is accompanied by the occurrence of the predicted

facial expression (Davidson, in press). For instance,

Davidson stated that little is known about the incidence of

different facial expressions depending on context or type of

emotion elicitor (i.e., imagery, emotional film clip). For

example, Tomarken and Davidson (1992) found very few overt

expressions of fear in response to fear film clips. Also,

Davidson (in press) raised questions concerning the facial

expressions of positive emotion. Specifically, he indicated

that while there are multiple forms of positive affect as

evidenced using behavioral, subjective, and physiological

indices, there is only one facial expression indicative of

the experience of positive emotion.

Dimensional Approaches

In an attempt to explain the polarity of emotion,

dimensional theorists have conceptualized emotion as varying










on two or three polar dimensions. Wundt (1896) suggested

that emotions can be conceptualized in terms of three

different dimensions: pleasantness-unpleasantness,

relaxation-tension, and calm-excitement. In addition, the

dimensional views of emotion were supported by Cannon's

(1927) claim that the same visceral changes occur in

different emotional states. Consequently, theorists such as

Duffy (1957) conceptualized emotions as varying along a

general state of activation or arousal. Other contemporary

investigators have used dimensions to characterize facial

expressions (e.g., Scholsberg, 1941; Osgood, 1966) and

verbal report (e.g., Russell & Mehrabian, 1977). Lang

(1985) stated that most variance within factor analytic

studies of the verbal report of emotional experience was

accounted for by two dimensions, activation (arousal-

quiescence) and valence (pleasure-displeasure). Because the

bidimensional view seems to neglect a certain amount of

variance, Lang proposed that the dimension termed dominance-

submission by Russell and Mehrabian (1977) may account for

the residual variance.

Similar to the view of the discrete emotions theorists,

Lang (1985) suggested that emotional behavior has developed

phylogenetically for basic survival tasks (e.g., searching

for food or fighting for territory). Further, Lang

hypothesized that the combination of valence (approach vs.

avoid), arousal (energy mobilization), and dominance










(postural stance) are critically important for smooth

execution of behaviors necessary for success in survival

tasks. Lang asserted that it is essential to determine how

emotion is represented in memory in order to ascertain how

emotion drives cognitive processing. Lang proposed that

emotion information is coded within memory in the form of

propositions which are organized into associative networks.

The associative networks are comprised of three tiers;

semantic codes, stimulus representation, and response

programs.

According to Lang's Bioinformational Theory (1979,

1984), emotions are associated with action. Access of

emotional propositions are associated with efferent outflow,

and thus emotion can be measured in terms of three response

systems; verbal report, overt behavior (i.e, facial

expression, body posturing, and emotional prosody), and

peripheral and central physiological measures. However,

only stable networks which are called emotion prototypes,

such as those found in phobics, demonstrate a reliable

behavioral output in all three response systems.

Consequently, emotional experience is an epiphenomenon of

the 3 response systems which reflect an underlying centrally

represented propositional network.

Taken together, theories of emotion differ quite

dramatically in their emphasis on and definition of

emotional experience. James and Lange view emotional








14

experience as the awareness of bodily sensations associated

with emotion. Cannon, on the other hand, views conscious

awareness of emotion as arising from neurological activation

which may be accompanied by visceral and muscular changes.

Papez, MacLean, and LeDoux support this view. Appraisal

theorists emphasize the importance of cognition combined

with physiological arousal in the awareness of emotion.

Discrete emotion theories view the experience of categorical

emotions which corresponded to specific facial expressions.

Lastly, most dimensional theorists emphasize the experience

of emotion based on two or three polar emotional dimensions,

whereas Lang views emotional experience as an epiphenomenon

of overt behavior, physiological activity, and verbal

report.

For purposes of the present study, emotional experience

is defined as a psychological phenomenon or subjective

experience which can be measured indirectly through

physiological measures, verbal report, and overt behaviors

(e.g., facial muscle responses). Because emotional

experience is not directly observable, problems are inherent

in any definition of and attempt to measure it. In terms of

the present definition of emotional experience, it is

unclear what the impact of decreased responding in any of

the three response systems means in terms of emotional

experience. For instance, if an individual reports

experiencing anxiety, but displays no physiological or overt










responses, it is unknown whether there is a disconnection

between experience and motor output or whether the person is

not experiencing the emotion as completely as someone who

reacted with all three response systems.

Hemispheric Asymmetry of Emotion

Along with general psychological theories of emotion,

investigators have examined the organization of emotion in

the brain. Historically, emotion has been associated with

the limbic system (Papez, 1937; MacLean, 1952). More

recently, neuropsychologists have examined the role of the

cerebral hemispheres in modulating emotional behavior.

Research involving neurologically impaired patients has

aided in developing an understanding of how various domains

of emotional behavior (i.e., evaluation, expression,

arousal) are disrupted by focal lesions of the left and

right hemispheres. Based on some clinical studies, along

with findings from normal individuals (see review, Heilman,

Bowers, & Valenstein in press), inferences have been made

regarding the neural networks that might underlie different

aspects of emotional behavior including evaluation,

expression, arousal, and experience.

Early observations of individuals following hemispheric

damage revealed differences in mood reactions depending on

whether the left or right hemisphere was involved.

Babinski (1914) was one of the first to note that patients

with right hemisphere damage (RHD) appeared indifferent or








16

euphoric. Others have reported similar observations (Denny-

Brown, Meyer, & Horenstein, 1952). Denny-Brown et al.

described a 55 year old woman with a right parietal infarct,

who appeared "indifferent" towards her illness as well as

apathetic towards her family's affairs. By contrast,

individuals with left hemisphere dysfunction (LHD) have been

observed to appear depressed, which was termed "catastrophic

reaction" by Goldstein (1948). Terzian (1964) noted that

injection of sodium amytal into the left carotid artery,

which inactivated the left hemisphere, was associated with a

depressive reaction, whereas injection of sodium amytal into

the right carotid artery was associated with an euphoric

reaction. More systematic large-scale studies of RHD and

LHD patients have been consistent with the early clinical

reports. Gainotti (1972) investigated the verbal

expressions and behavior of 160 patients with left and right

hemisphere lesions. Behaviors indicative of catastrophic

reactions or anxious-depressive mood were more frequent

among LHD patients, while indifference reactions were more

prevalent among RHD patients. Observations of post-stroke

mood changes has generated a large body of research over the

past 20 years in an attempt to understand the contributions

of the left and right hemispheres to emotion.

Two prominent theories of hemispheric differences in

emotion have arisen from the clinical studies reported

above. According to the global right hemisphere view, the










right hemisphere is involved in interpreting emotional

stimuli and has a unique relationship to subcortical

structures which mediate cerebral arousal and activation

(e.g., Heilman, Watson, & Bowers, 1983). Consequently,

damage in the right hemisphere interferes with processing

emotional stimuli, programs of expressive behavior, and

cerebral arousal and activation. In contrast, the bivalent

view of emotion posits that the anterior portion of the

right hemisphere is dominant for negative/avoidance emotions

and the anterior region of the left hemisphere is dominant

for positive/approach emotions (e.g., Fox & Davidson, 1984).

According to the bivalent view, right hemisphere damage

causes positive/approach affect and left hemisphere damage

evokes negative/avoidance affect. Both models and the

empirical research in support of each are discussed below.

Global Theory of EI-tion

According to the global right hemisphere model,

observations of emotional indifference in RHD patients can

be explained by the right hemisphere's specialization for

coding nonverbal affective signals and mediating arousal and

activation (Heilman et al., 1983). The global right

hemisphere theory is supported by research exploring

emotional evaluation, expression, and arousal/activation,

which has revealed that RHD patients are deficient in

interpretation of emotional stimuli, are emotionally










flattened, and physiologically hypoaroused. The relevant

research is discussed below.

E'.'alu(L ti of emt: t icn

Most of the research in support of the global right

hemisphere view of emotion has arisen from investigations of

evaluation and perception of affective stimuli (i.e., facial

expression and emotional prosody). Many patients with RHD

have impairments in identifying and discriminating facial

expressions. This research was initially conducted by

DeKosky, Heilman, Bowers, and Valenstein (1980) and has been

consistently replicated across other laboratories (Cicone,

Wapner, & Gardner, 1980; Etcoff, 1984; Bowers, Bauer,

Coslett, & Heilman, 1985). From an historical perspective,

one critical issue was whether the RH superiority in

identifying facial expressions was secondary to the role of

the RH in mediating complex visual configurational stimuli.

Evidence against this view point comes from covariance

studies, individual case reports, and studies which find RHD

patients impaired in identifying facial affect when it has

been verbally described.

First, in covariance studies, visuoperceptual ability

has been controlled for and equated statistically. In these

studies, deficits in RHD patients in recognition of

affective facial expressions have been observed above and

beyond deficits in visuoperceptual ability (Ley and Byrden,

1979; Bowers et al., 1985). Second, case descriptions have










documented dissociations between performance on

visuoperceptual facial recognition and performance on

affective facial expression recognition (Dekosky et al.,

1980). Third, Blonder et al. (1992) found that RHD patients

were impaired relative to LHD patients and NHD controls in

identifying emotion associated with a verbal description of

a non-verbal signal, i.e., he scowled. Similar results

were found in RHD patients compared to LHD patients and

normal controls when asked to imagine facial expressions

(Bowers, Blonder, Feinberg, & Heilman, 1991). Because these

nonverbal affect signals were verbally described, poor

performance of the RHD group could not be attributed to

perceptual impairment.

Taken together, these studies suggest that there are

specific subsystems for processing affective facial stimuli.

This evidence is comparable to findings in the animal

literature. Using single cell recordings, neuroscientists

have identified visual neurons in the temporal cortex and

amygdala of monkeys that responded selectively to faces and

to facial expressions (Perret et al., 1984; Leonard, Rolls,

& Wilson, 1985).

In addition -o deficits in comprehension of emotional

faces, many patients with RHD also have impairments in

understanding emc:ional prosody. For example, many patients

with RHD have difficulty identifying emotional prosody,

which includes the pitch, tempo and rhythm of speech.








20

Discrimination of effectively intoned speech was found to be

worse in patients with RHD in the temporoparietal regions

compared to patients with LHD (Tucker, Watson, & Heilman,

1977; Heilman, Scholes, & Watson, 1975; Ross, 1981).

In addition, there is evidence to suggest that RHD

patients are impaired in understanding nonemotional as well

as emotional prosody (Weintraub, Mesulam, & Kramer, 1981).

Both RHD and LHD patients were impaired compared to NHD

controls in nonemotional prosody, while RHD were more

impaired than the LHD patients in emotional prosody

(Heilman, Bowers, Speedie, & Coslett, 1984). Consequently,

these authors conclude that both hemispheres are important

in comprehension of nonemotional prosody, but the right

hemisphere plays a more vital role in the comprehension of

emotional prosody.

Not all studies find hemispheric specific prosody

dysfunction. Schlanger, Schlanger, and Gerstmann (1976)

found no differences between RHD and LHD patients in

comprehension of emotional prosody; however, only 3 of 20

RHD patients in this study had temporoparietal lesions.

More recently, Van Lancker and Sidtis (1992) found equally

poor affective prosodic recognition in RHD and LHD patients.

Moreover, they determined that LHD and RHD patients use

different cues in attempting to recognize affective prosody.

Specifically, RHD patients tended to use timing cues,

whereas LHD patients used information about pitch. These










authors concluded that affective prosody is a multifaceted

process which cannot simply be explained by differences in

hemispheric specialization.

Studies of normals using dichotic listening tasks have

also been employed to explore hemispheric differences in

processing emotional prosody. In dichotic listening, two

different messages are simultaneously presented to the right

and left ears. Words were recalled best from the right ear

indicative of left hemisphere superiority (Kimura, 1967),

while mood of the speaker was recalled better from the left

ear, suggestive of right hemisphere superiority in

processing emotional prosody (Haggard & Parkinson, 1971; Ley

& Bryden, 1982).

In contrast to the tasks involving nonverbal signals,

evidence for a unique role of the right hemisphere in

mediating emotional understanding of messages that are

conveyed through propositional language is equivocal.

Recognition of emotional words has been found to be better

when presented tachistcscopically to the right hemisphere

(Graves, Landis, & Goodglass, 1981). However, RHD and LHD

patients did not differ in the ability to comprehend the

meaning of emotional and nonemotional words (Morris et al.,

1992), the ability to identify emotionality of short

propositional sentences (Heilman et al., 1984; Cicone,

Wapner, & Gardner, 1980; Blonder, Bowers, & Heilman, 1991;,










or the ability to judge similarity between two emotional

words (Etcoff, 1984).

However, recent evidence contradicts these findings.

Borod et al. (1992) found that, when compared to LHD and NHD

patients, RHD patients were more impaired in identifying and

discriminating emotional words and sentences. In addition,

RHD patients were impaired in their understanding of

emotionality in complex narratives (Gardner, Brownell,

Wapner, & Michelon, 1983; Gardner, Ling, Flam, & Silverman,

1975; Brownell, Michelon, Powelson, & Gardner, 1983). The

deficits of RHD patients in understanding complex narratives

may not be related to emotion, but to difficulties of RHD

patients in drawing inferences, reasoning, and interpreting

figures of speech (Heilman, Bowers, & Valenstein, in press).

However, this explanation does not explain the results of

Borod et al. (1992) who found that RHD were impaired in

identifying and discriminating words and short sentences.

Taken together, the above studies indicate that

patients with RHD have more difficulty than LHD patients and

NHD controls in evaluating nonverbal signals of emotion,

including facial expressions, emotional prosody, and verbal

messages of emotions. Moreover, RHD patients are equally

impaired for both positive and negative emotional signals.

Although some deficits in recognition of facial expressions

in RHD patients are related to general dysfunction in

visuospatial ability, others are apparently independent of










visuospatial ability. In part, some deficits in affective

prosody may be due to more elemental dysfunction in complex

auditory analysis. In contrast to nonverbal affective

signals, the role of the right hemisphere in processing

verbal emotional signals remains unclear. At present, some

argue that an emotional semantic network is widely

distributed between the hemispheres whereas other argue that

the RH may be dominant for emotional semantics.

Expression of emotion

The global right hemisphere view of emotion has also

been supported by investigations of deficits in expression

of emotion. Overall facial expressivity of emotions has

been evaluated in RHD, LHD, and NH controls. Some authors

have reported that RHD patients were less spontaneously

expressive than LHD and NH controls (Blonder, et al., 1991;

Borod, Koff, Lorch, & Nicholas, 1985; Borod, Koff, Perlman-

Lorch, & Nicholas, 1988; Buck & Duffy, 1980). However,

Weddell, Miller, and Trevarth-n (1990) found LHD and RHD

patients who had tumors were equally impaired and less

expressive than NHD controls. When excisions occurred or

tumor and CVA patients were combined, RHD and LHD patients

did not significantly differ from controls (Kolb & Milner,

1981; Mammacuri, et al., 1988). Additionally, re nt

evidence exists from studies using a carefully delineated

facial scoring system which contradicts the findings that

RHD patients are less facially expressive. For example, no








24

differences in facial expressiveness has been found between

LHD and RHD patients when Ekman's facial action scoring

system (FACS) has been used (Mammacuri, et al., 1988;

Caltagirone, et al., 1989).

Other studies have examined the ability of RHD and LHD

patients to voluntarily pose specific facial expression.

Some investigators have found that RHD patients were more

impaired than LHD patients and NHD controls in their

voluntary expression of facial affect (Borod, Koff, Perlman-

Lorch, & Nicholas, 1986; Borod, & Koff, 1990; Kent, et al.,

1988; Richardson, Bowers, Eyeler, & Heilman, 1992). Other

investigators (Kolb and Taylor, 1990) found that RHD and LHD

patients are equally impaired relative to NHD controls,

whereas others found no differences in expressivity among

these three groups (Caltagirone et al., 1988; Heilman et

al., 1983; Weddell, et al., 1990).

Borod (submitted) reviewed the literature on facial

expressiveness in unilateral damaged patients. She

concluded that the patients in those studies finding RHD

patients to be more impaired than LHD and normal controls

differed from those in which differences were not found.

Specifically, she noted that the first group was more likely

to be older, male, with cerebrovascular pathology, and a

longer time since disease onset. The second group was more

likely to have tumor pathology. Additionally, subjective

ratings were used in the first group, while FACS and










concealed videotapes were used in the second group. One

problem with these differences is that stroke patients may

have more severe cognitive deficits than comparable tumor

patients (Anderson, Damasio & Tranel, 1990). Secondly,

acute pathology is associated with more pervasive deficits

(Borod, in press). Thirdly, FACS may be insufficiently

sensitive to facial expressive communication (Buck, 1990).

Asymmetries in facial expressiveness have also been

examined in normal adults. In a recent review of 23 studies

of spontaneous expression and 24 studies of posed

expression, Borod (in press) concluded that the left

hemiface is more intense and moves more than the right

hemiface. According to Borod, these results were stronger

for negative than positive emotions. There have been

fewer studies of prosodic emotion than facial expression of

emotion in patients with unilateral damage. Studies of

spontaneous prosodic expression have revealed deficits in

RHD patients compared to LHD patients and NHD controls (Ross

& Mesulam, 1979; Borod et al., 1985; Gorelick & Ross, 1987;

Ross, 1981). Similar results were found in investigations

of voluntary affective prosody, such that RHD patients

showed impairment relative to LHD and NHD controls (Borod et

al., 1990; Gorelick & Ross, 1987; Tucker, et al., 1977).

However, Cancelliere and Kertesz (1990) found no impairments

in either RHD and LHD patients relative to NHD controls.










Emotional arousal/activation

Few studies have examined affective psychophysiological

reactivity in brain-lesioned individuals. In the most

commonly used procedure, emotional slides have been used to

evoke affective responses while skin conductance response

(SCR) is measured. Findings indicate that normals and

patients with LHD have significantly higher SCRs to

emotional than neutral slides. In contrast, RHD patients do

not differentially respond to emotional and neutral slides

(Morrow, Vrtunski, Kim, & Boller, 1981; Zoccolatti, Scabini,

& Violani, 1982).

Similar results were obtained by Meadows and Kaplan

(1992) using slides depicting neutral and negative content

(i.e., mutilations). Relative to NHD controls, RHD patients

had smaller SCRs to both emotional and neutral slides, LHD

patients had high SCRs to both types of slides. Contrary

to the above findings, Schrandt, Tranel, and Damasio (1989)

found that left hemisphere lesions and many right hemisphere

lesions did not interfere with SCR during presentation of

emotional slides. In this study, patients with focal

lesions in left or right frontal, parietal, or temporal

lobes were examined. Only patients with right hemisphere

lesions involving the supramarginal gyrus displayed abnormal

SCRs.

In another study, Heilman, Schwartz, andWatson (1978)

investigated SCR while a mildly noxious electrical stimulus










was delivered to the forearm ipsilateral to the lesion in

RHD, LHD, and NH patients. The RHD group had smaller SCRs

than either the LHD or NH groups. Also, the LHD group had a

higher SCR than the normal group.

Cardiovascular activity has also been examined in

patients with LHD and RHD. Yokoyama, Jennings, Ackles,

Hood, and Boller (1987) examined RHD, LHD, and NC patients

using a reaction time task, while HR interbeat intervals

were obtained. The controls and LHD subjects displayed

anticipatory deceleration, followed by postresponse

acceleration. The HR responding of the RHD patients varied

little during anticipation and postresponse.

To sum, emotional slides evoke smaller SCR or less

arousal, in right hemisphere damaged patients compared to

NHD and LHD patients. Moreover, one study only found this

distinction in patients with right parietal lesions.

Additionally, in some studies, LHD patients responded with

accentuated SCRs, (i.e., greater arousal), in response to

emotional slides. Similar findings of decreased SCRs in RHD

patients and increased SCR in LHD patients have been

obtained in response to mildly noxious stimuli. Also,

patients with RHD have attenuated HR reactivity in response

to a reaction time task. Taken together, it appears that

RHD patients are hypoaroused and LHD patients may be

hyperaroused in response to emotional, painful, or

attention-demanding stimuli.










Bivalent Model of Emotion

In its simplest form, the bivalent model posits that

the right hemisphere is specialized for negative/avoidance

emotions, whereas the left hemisphere is specialized for

positive/approach emotions. According to the bivalent

model, the catastrophic reaction noted in left hemisphere

patients results from the predominance of the right

hemisphere's negative emotion. On the other hand, the

observations that right hemisphere damaged patients are

euphoric or cheerful can be explained by the overcontrol of

the left hemisphere's mediation of positive emotions

(Davidson & Fox, 1982; Kinsbourne & Bemporad, 1984; Reuter-

Lorenz & Davidson, 1981). This model was first based on

observation of emotional behavior during inactivation of the

left and right hemispheres with injection of sodium amytal

(Terzian, 1964).

Evaluation of emotion

Research investigating the hemispheric differences

during evaluation of nonverbal signals of emotion has

yielded conflicting results. Although tachistoscopic

studies in normals generally support the view that the right

hemisphere is superior for processing emotional faces (i.e.,

Suberi & McKeever, 1977), closer examination reveals some

support for the bivalent view of emotion. For example, the

finding of right hemisphere superiority was attenuated with

happy and angry facial expressions, which can be










conceptualized as approach emotions (Suberi & McKeever,

1977). Additionally, Reuter-Lorenz and Davidson (1981)

presented subjects with an emotional face and a neutral face

of the same individual simultaneously to each visual field.

Reaction times for identifying happy expressions were faster

during presentation to the right visual field (left

hemisphere) and faster for sad expressions when presented to

the left visual field (right hemisphere). However results

have not been consistently replicated (Duda & Brown, 1984;

McLaren & Bryson, 1987), and the vast majority of studies of

affect perception in normals or focal lesion patients failed

to demonstrate hemisphere-specific valence asymmetries.

Expression of emotion

Many studies of facial expressiveness have found that

the left side of the face is more expressive than the right.

These studies have been interpreted as reflecting a dominant

role of the right hemisphere in emotional expression

(Sackeim & Gur, 1978; Borod, Koff, & White, 1983; Campbell,

1978; Heller & Levy, 1981; Moreno, Borod, Welkowitz, &

Alpert, 1990). However, Schwartz, Ahern, and Brown (1979)

recorded bilateral corrugator and zygomatic EMG during a

mood induction task. They found that subjects expressed

positive emotions more intensely on the right side of the

face and negative emotions on the left side of the face.

However, the majority of research investigating emotional

expressivity in normals and patients with focal lesions








30

supports the global rather than the bivalent model (Blonder,

et al., 1991; Borod et al., 1985, 1988; Buck & Duffy, 1980).

Emotional arousal/activation

Hemispheric activation during emotional responding in

normal subjects have been investigated using measures such

as electroencephalography (EEG) and lateral eye movements

(LEM). Using EEG, it has been found that in the frontal

zones, positive emotions produced more left than right

hemisphere EEG activation, while negative emotions produced

more right than left EEG activation (Ahern & Schwartz, 1985;

Tucker, Stenslie, Roth, & Shearer, 1981; Davidson et al.,

1979; Davidson, et al., 1990). In addition, Ahern and

Schwartz (1985) found that the right parietal zone was

related to emotional intensity, whereas Bennett, Davidson

and Saron (1980) as well as Davidson and colleagues (1990)

found no differences in parietal activation related to

emotion.

Lateral eye movements (LEM) have also been used as a

measure of hemispheric activation. LEM towards the right

have been interpreted as reflecting left hemisphere

activation, while LEM to the left is suggestive of right

hemisphere activation. Initial findings revealed more LEMs

to the left during emotional experience (Davidson &

Schwartz, 1976; Schwartz, Davidson, & Maer, 1975; Tucker,

Roth, Arneson, & Buckingham, 1977). Ahern and Schwartz

(1979) investigated lateral eye movement in response to










reflective questions in normal subjects. They found that

positive emotional questions evoked more LEMs to the left.

They interpreted this as left hemisphere specialization for

positive emotions and right hemisphere specialization for

negative emotions. However, the lateral eye movement

methodology has been criticized (Erlichman & Weinberger,

1978).

Research on mood

Observation of mood after hemispheric damage has also

been viewed as supporting the bivalent model. Sackheim et

al. (1982) reported that pathological laughing was more

likely to be associated with RHD and pathological crying was

associated with LHD. Additionally, they found that patients

with right hemispherectomies were judged to be euphoric in

mood, while patients with left hemispherectomies were not.

Also, they examined published case reports of gelastic

epileptics, typified by laughing outbursts during ictal

experience, with either left or right lateralized ictal

foci. They found that ictal foci in gelastic epileptics was

predominately left-sided. Based on previous literature, the

authors suggested that the laughing outburst which occurred

during ictal experience were caused by hyperactivity in the

focal area. These authors concluded that both disinhibition

and excitation cause different manifestations in mood in the

right and left hemispheres.










Robinson and his colleagues have investigated

depressive symptoms following stroke in both right and left

hemisphere patients. In two studies, Robinson and Price

(1982) and Robinson et al. (1984) found that patients with

left hemisphere strokes were more depressed than patients

with right hemisphere strokes. Starkstein, Robinson, and

Price (1987) also noted that right hemisphere patients were

indifferent and sometimes euphoric immediately following

stroke. Additionally, Robinson and Szetela (1981) reported

that patients with traumatic brain injury, while equally as

impaired cognitively and physically, were not as depressed

as stroke patients. Consequently, frequency and severity of

depression is not solely related to amount of physical and

cognitive impairment.

Differences in mood depending on caudality (anterior

versus posterior location) of the lesions were also observed

(Robinson et al., 1984). The left anterior group showed

significantly more overall depression than the left

posterior group, whereas the right posterior group were more

depressed than right anterior group. Similarly, Starkstein

et al. (1987) reported that when depression was present in

RHD patients, it was associated with parietal lesions.

Additionally, depression was found to be correlated with

closeness of the lesion to the frontal pole (Robinson &

Szetela, 1981; Starkstein, Robinson, and Price, 1987).










In a subsequent study, Sinyor, et al. (1986) assessed

both cognitive and vegetative signs of depression using a

variety of verbal report measures in unilateral stroke

patients. Contrary to the above findings, no overall

differences in depression were found between groups.

However, consistent with the above findings, severity of

depression in LHD patients was positively related to

proximity of the lesion to the frontal pole. In addition, a

curvilinear relationship was found for RHD patients such

that both anterior and posterior lesions were associated

with depression. Moreover, House et al. (1990) reported

that RHD patients may be depressed more than is believed,

but due to their deficits in emotional communication, their

depression goes undetected.

Taken together, the results are equivocal. There is

evidence in support of differential moods in left and right

hemisphere damaged patients. Some investigators suggested

that RHD patients express enhanced cheerfulness (e.g.,

Terzian, 1964), and LHD patients express or report

experiencing more depression than RHD patients (e.g.,

Robinson et al., 1984). However, other investigators found

no differences in depressed mood between LHD and RHD

patients. Additionally, some studies revealed that during

negative emotion, greater EEG activation was associated with

anterior right activation. In contrast, during positive

emotion, greater EEG activation was associated with anterior










left activation. However, EEG activation of right frontal

and right parietal regions was associated with emotion

intensity. Also, inferring hemispheric activation using

LEM, findings supported greater right hemisphere activation

during negative emotion experience and left hemisphere

activation during positive emotion experience, but LEM

methodology has also been criticized.

Specific bivalent models

In general, the bivalent model posits that the left

hemisphere is specialized for positive/approach emotions and

the right hemisphere is specialized for negative/avoidance

emotions. However, there are many variations of the general

bivalent model. Kinsbourne and Bemporad (1984) suggested

that the left fronto-temporal cortex exerts action control,

defined as manipulating external stimuli. They argued that

left posterior parietal cortex sends exteroceptive input to

the left fronto-temporal cortex. The right fronto-temporal

cortex, on the other hand, controls emotional, internal

arousal, while the right posterior cortex relays

interoceptive information to the emotional control system.

Consequently, in patients with right focal lesions,

meaningfulness of environmental stimuli is deficient. Thus,

RHD patients experience inappropriate emotionality.

Additionally, Kinsbourne and Bemporad explained that the RH

is specialized for monitoring both positive and negative

emotional valence, but positive states enhance motivation










and readiness to act which are left hemisphere attributes.

Specifically, passivity and involvement in perceptual

judgement relates to RH activation, whereas overt responses

or covert response planning is associated with left

hemisphere activation.

Davidson and his colleagues (Fox and Davidson,1984;

Davidson, 1985; Davidson et al., 1990) proposed a similar

theory. They purported that the behavioral dimension of

approach-withdrawal is the organizing dimension for

hemispheric specialization in that the right hemisphere is

specialized for withdrawal emotions such as disgust, whereas

the left hemisphere is specialized for approach emotions

such as interest. In addition, Davidson (1985) postulated

there are reciprocal relations between the frontal and

parietal lobes. Specifically, left frontal activation is

balanced by right parietal activation and vice versa. For

example, he stated that spatial cognition (right parietal)

and positive affect (left frontal) are more likely to occur

concurrently than verbal cognition (left parietal) and

positive affect.

Heller (1990) posited a similar view. She asserted

that the right hemisphere may be specialized for

interpretation of emotion, but not specialized for the

regulation of mood. Heller also emphasized the importance

of distinguishing between the functions of the anterior and

posterior regions of the brain, citing evidence that the










right temporal parietal regions are involved in

interpretation of emotional information and evidence that

implicates the frontal regions of both hemispheres in the

experience of mood. Heller (1990) stated that the right

parietal cortex mediates both cortical and autonomic

arousal, while bilateral frontal regions mediate valence.

She purported that experience of emotion is associated with

patterns of activation in frontal and parietal brain

regions.

Summary

As reviewed in the preceding sections, most evidence

supportive of the bivalent model has been derived from two

lines of research. These include: (a) findings of different

mood reactions following right versus left hemisphere

lesions, particularly those involving the anterior regions;

and (b) findings in normals of hemispheric EEG activation

asymmetries during induction of positive versus negative

mood. In contrast, data from neuropsychological studies of

affect perception are more in line with the view that the

right hemisphere is critically involved in appraising

nonverbal emotional signals, regardless of their valence.

The discrepancy between such studies corresponds to the

distinction raised by Heller (1990) between interpretation

of emotion (viewed to be right hemisphere dependent) versus

the regulation of mood (which is not viewed to be right

hemisphere specific).










Observations that RHD patients are autonomically

hypoaroused in response to affective scenes (relative to NHD

and LHD patients) have been interpreted as support for a

dominant role of the right hemisphere in emotional arousal.

However, this interpretation is not without question given

that such studies have generally measured autonomic

responsivity only in response to neutral and unpleasant

scenes (Meadows & Kaplan, 1992; Zoccolatti et al., 1982) or

situations (Heilman et al., 1978). Pleasant scenes or

stimulus materials have not been used in such studies and it

remains unknown whether stroke of the right hemisphere

equally attenuate autonomic reactivity to pleasant scenes.

In and of itself, the current existing data that RHD stroke

patients are hypoaroused to negative-affective scenes are

equally consistent with the bivalent as well as the global

right hemisphere model. Of relevance, Morris et al. (1991)

recently reported valence-specific hypoarousal in a patient

following a right temporal lobectomy. Skin conductance

responses were obtained to unpleasant (mutilations),

pleasant (attractive nudes), and neutral breadbasketss)

slides. This patient showed abnormally reduced SCR to

unpleasant but normal SCR to pleasant and neutral slides, a

pattern of findings that is consistent with a bivalent

model. Had only unpleasant scenes been used in this study

one would not be able to logically distinguish between the

bivalent and global right hemisphere model. For this










reason, it is crucial to include both pleasant and

unpleasant scenes or situations when studying

psychophysiological responses in neuropsychological

investigations of emotion. Such was employed in this study.

Before discussing the proposed study more fully, a

brief overview of relevant literature on emotional

psychophysiology will be presented. This is being done

since the current study will include several

psychophysiological indices (i.e., skin conductance, heart

rate, facial electromyography) for assessing emotional

responsivity in patients with right or left hemisphere

lesions.

Emotional Psychophysioloqy

Autonomic Responding

At the psychophysiological level, the relationship

between autonomic activity and emotion has been recognized

for centuries. Recent technological advances have made the

prospect of online physiological measurement more feasible.

Theorists have attempted to understand the factors which

influence skin conductance and heart rate. Sokolov (1963)

described two types of responses which occur during

conditioning: orienting and defensive reactions. He

purported that the purpose of the orienting response (OR) is

to increase sensitivity to incoming stimuli and that it

includes both a transient increase in skin conductance. The

defensive response (DR), on the other hand, is evoked in








39

response to high intensity or aversive stimuli and helps the

organism to limit activity with the stimulus. This response

includes increases in sympathetic activity such as cephalic

vasoconstriction and increase in skin conductance.

Lacey and Lacey (1970) extended Sokolov's views of

autonomic responding. They suggested that heart rate

acceleration (tachycardia) during acute affective states is

not a index of arousal per se, but reflects instead the

organism's attempt to limit or terminate bodily turmoil

produced by some stimulus. By contrast, heart rate

deceleration (bradycardia) is induced with intention to

respond to a task, attention to stimuli, and during

vicariously experienced stress. Thus, Lacey and Lacey

argued that the cardiovascular system is not a nonspecific

index of arousal, but a highly specialized response

mechanism which is integrated with affect and cognition and

which also reveals individual differences in the way people

deal with the environment.

Graham and Clifton (1966) pointed out that Sokolov

(1963) and the Laceys (1958) agreed on the existence of an

orienting and defensive response. However, Graham and

Clifton indicated that they did not agree on the

relationship between orienting and defensive responses and

heart rate. Sokolov inferred that heart rate (HR)

acceleration was related to increased sensitivity of

incoming stimuli, whereas HR deceleration was related to










decreased sensitivity of incoming stimuli. The Laceys

hypothesized the reverse pattern. In their thorough review

of the literature, Graham and Clifton concluded that, in

fact, the Laceys hypotheses have been supported in that HR

deceleration is associated with orienting and HR

acceleration is associated with defensive responding.

A large body of research exists in which the autonomic

correlates of affective states have been investigated.

Throughout the second half of this century, researchers have

systematically explored the relationship between emotion and

psychophysiological measures including skin conductance and

heart rate. Early studies of systematic desensitization in

phobic patients revealed that as the subjects imagined more

fearful images, HR and skin conductance responses (SCR)

increased (Lang, Melamad, & Hart, 1970).

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, a series of studies

by Hare and colleagues indicated that slides of mutilated

bodies evoked HR deceleration, an orienting response (OR).

These results were initially confusing because it had been

hypothesized that the slides would evoke fear and HR

acceleration, a defense response (DR). Upon reanalyzing his

data (Hare, 1972), it was found that some subjects had

consistently reacted with HR acceleration, some with marked

deceleration, and some with moderate deceleration.

Subsequently, researchers explored the differing

reactions of phobics and nonphobics in response to affective










slides. The findings indicated that presentation of a

feared object resulted in initial HR acceleration, e.g.,

(DR), while presentation of a nonfeared object results in HR

deceleration, e.g., (OR) (Hare, 1973; Klorman, Weissberg, &

Wiesenfeld, 1977; Klorman, Wiesenfeld & Austin, 1975).

Additionally, SCR was elevated with the presentation of

fearful stimuli (e.g., Klorman, Weissberg, & Wiesenfeld,

1977) and, in some studies, the amount of elevation was

higher for phobics (Klorman, Wiesenfeld & Austin, 1975).

Imagery has also been used to evoke emotional states.

It is important to note that during imagery, autonomic

responsivity (i.e., HR and SCR) is influenced not only by

the affective state, but also by other factors such as

imagery instructions and the subjects' ability to image

(Lang, Kozak, Miller, & Levin, 1980; Miller, Levin, Kozak,

Cook, McLean, & Lang, 1987. Vrana, Cuthbert, and Lang

(1986) found that normal subjects verbally reported

experiencing more arousal, more unpleasantness, and less

control during fear imagery than during neutral imagery.

Fear images also evoked HR acceleration which lasted over a

10 second period. In contrast, neutral images produced

acceleration followed by deceleration. Thus, HR and

subjective report distinguished fearful from neutral

imagery.

Taken together, the results of these studies are

consistent with the views of Graham and Clifton (1966) and










Lacey and Lacey (1970). Heart rate typically increases in

response to feared stimuli when presented visually or

imagined. On the other hand, HR deceleration follows the

visual presentation of a novel or interesting stimulus,

whereas imaging of a novel or interesting stimuli produces

HR acceleration followed by deceleration.

Facial Electromyography (EMG)

Before describing the facial electromyography research,

the neuroanatomical pathways involved in facial muscle

movements will be briefly reviewed. Motor neurons send

information from the brain to innervate muscle and can be

distinguished from sensory neurons which bring information

to the brain. There are two types of motor neurons: upper

motor neurons (.T) and lower motor neurons (LMN) Upper

motor neurons carry impulses from motor centers in the brain

to the brain stem and spinal cord. Lower motor neurons

carry information from brain stem and spinal cord to

muscles. At the UMN level, fibers from either the

contralateral or both hemispheres supply impulses to the LMN

nucleus, the motor nucleus of the facial nerve, which

innervates muscles of facial expression. The voluntary and

involuntary motor pathways mediating facial expression are

distinct from one another. Voluntary movement is mediated

by the corticobulbar tract, originating in the precentral

gyrus of the motor cortex of the frontal lobe. The

involuntary pathway includes the basal ganglia, red nucleus,










and midbrain reticular formation. (Rinn, 1984). Although

the pathways of voluntary and involuntary emotions are

different, the measurement of facial expressions are the

same regardless of the volitional quality of the expression.

Detailed facial coding systems, such as Ekman's FACS

(Ekman & Friesen, 1978) and Izard's MAX (1978) have been

used to measure minute muscle movements of the face.

Because these rating systems are quite time intensive and

because spontaneous facial muscle activity is often brief

and too small to be observed overtly, facial

electromyography (EMG) has sometimes been used to measure

subtle changes in muscle movements. The most common facial

muscle regions measured using EMG are the corrugator

supercilli (brow) and zygomatic major (cheek) muscles

regions. Various methods have been used to induce emotional

states while EMG of the corrugator and zygomatic muscles

have been measured. These emotion eliciting procedures have

included imagery, viewing affective slides, self-referential

statements, and self-disclosing interview. Consequently,

the facial expressions that accompany these emotion

induction procedures involve involuntary/spontaneous facial

movements. The UMN innervation of the corrugator muscle is

bilateral, whereas the UMN innervation of the zygomatic is

contralateral (Rinn, 1984). Thus, muscle activity in the

left and right corrugator regions cannot be activated










independently, but muscle activity of the left and right

zygomatic regions can be stimulated separately.

During affective imagery, positive emotional states

have been associated with decreased corrugator and increased

zygomatic activity. Conversely, negative emotional states

have been associated with increased corrugator activity and

decreased zygomatic activity (Schwartz et al., 1976a,

1976b). Also, when verbal report of emotions has been

obtained, corrugator activity positively correlates with

unpleasant emotions and negatively correlates with pleasant

emotions. The opposite pattern has been found for zygomatic

activity (Brown & Schwartz, 1980; McCanne & Anderson, 1987;

Slomine and Greene, 1993). Similar results have been

reported from other investigators using self-referent

statements designed to induce either elation or depression

(Sirota, Schwartz, & Kristeller, 1987), and affective slides

(Cacioppo, Petty, Lasch, and Kim, 1986). Additionally, an

interview technique was employed to elicit and investigate

naturally occurring emotional states (Cacioppo, Martzke,

Petty and Tassinary, 1988). Replicating previous findings,

elevations in corrugator EMG were related to lower positive

emotion ratings and higher negative emotional ratings.

In sum, the above studies attest to the importance of

the covert activity of the corrugator supercilli and

zygomatic major muscles as indexes of emotion.

Specifically, EMG activity of the corrugator supercilli has










been consistently found to increase during exposure to

stimuli rated as unpleasant or during the reported

experience of unpleasant affect. Conversely, activity of

the zygomatic major has been found to increase during the

report of positive emotional states.

Facial and Autonomic Studies

Few studies have included measures of both facial and

autonomic responding. In one study of affective slides

viewing, Greenwald, Cook, and Lang (1989) examined emotional

ratings, HR, SCR, zygomatic and corrugator EMG. Zygomatic

activity was positively related to pleasure ratings and

corrugator activity was negatively related. Zygomatic EMG,

however, also increased during unpleasant slides viewing.

Neither muscle site was related to arousal ratings. Phasic

HR acceleration was positively related to valence ratings,

but not arousal. This relationship was weaker than the

valence/EMG relationship. Skin conductance responses were

significantly related to increased arousal ratings, but not

valence ratings. Quite similar results were found when

autonomic and facial responding were measured during imagery

(York, 1991; Bradley, Lang, & Cuthbert (1991) in that HR

acceleration and SCR were larger for pleasant and unpleasant

compared to neutral imagery, and corrugator EMG was higher

for the unpleasant compared to pleasant and neutral imagery.

Ekman and colleagues have found that giving subjects

either muscle-by-muscle instructions to contract voluntary










sets of facial expression and asking subjects to relive a

past emotional experience produced similar autonomic

changes, i.e., increases in HR and SCR (Ekman, Levenson, &

Friesen, 1983; Levenson, Ekman, and Friesen, 1990). These

authors concluded that there are biologically innate affect

programs which, when activated, provide instructions to

multiple response systems including skeletal muscles,

facial muscles, and the autonomic nervous system.

Taken together, the above research suggests that

zygomatic EMG increases with reported pleasantness, and

somewhat with extreme unpleasantness. Corrugator EMG

increases with reported unpleasantness. Skin conductance

responses are positively related to reported experience of

arousal, which can be induced through pleasant or unpleasant

emotional states. Heart rate, however, is variable and

depends on many factors such as reported affect, type of

evoking stimuli, and individual differences in responding.

However, during the presentation of emotional slides, HR

acceleration is positively related to valence, but

acceleration may be associated with aversive rather than

pleasant stimuli when phobics are presented with their fear

object. During imagery, HR typically accelerates during

both pleasant and unpleasant scenes. Additionally,

voluntary facial expressions produce changes in the

autonomic nervous system consistent with other tasks used to

induce emotional experience.










Anticipation of Affective Stimuli

Anticipation of affective stimuli has also been used to

elicit emotion. Lang, Ohman, and Simons (1978) described

the triphasic response of cardiac activity during a 4-8

second anticipation period. They reported that the onset of

the preparatory period is characterized by a brief

deceleration (D1). The initial deceleration is followed by

an acceleratory peak (Al). Lastly, a deceleration occurs

which lasts until the end of the preparatory interval (D2).

D1 is observed when subjects are presented with single pure

tones which are not followed by other stimuli and is thought

to be an index of orientation. The acceleratory phase is

seen in response to an abrupt stimulus or single stimulus

with an uncomfortable intensity level. Al has been

interpreted as an index of a defensive reflex. It has also

been evoked in the absence of noxious stimuli and during

problem solving or mentation.

According to Lang et. al (1978), most investigators

interpret the second deceleration, D2, as an index of

anticipation of an overt response. D2, however, has been

conditioned in classical conditioning paradigm even though

no motor response is required. Consequently, D2 has also

been viewed as an index of an attentive set. Similar HR

patterns have been found by Simons, Ohman, and Lang (1979)

in response to anticipation of slides (Simons, Ohman, &

Lang, 1979; Klorman & Ryan, 1980).











There is a large body of literature based on

anticipation of aversive stimuli. In one study, cluster

analysis was used to identify different patterns of HR

responses during anticipation of aversive noise (Hodes,

Cook, & Lang, 1985). Results indicated that there were

three types of responders; accelerators, decelerators, and

moderate decelerators similar to the groups obtained by Hare

(1972). The authors concluded that both the accelerators

and decelerators developed the expectancy that the CS+ would

precede the presentation of UCS. Accelerators, however,

associated fear with the CS+, while the decelerators did

not. The authors suggested that because the classical

aversive conditioning paradigm specifies no overt response

set, the subjects spontaneously assumed a response

disposition. Specifically, some responded with an

anticipatory, attentive set demonstrated by decelerators,

whereas others displayed an implicit avoidance characterized

by a defensive response. Moderate decelerazors showed

discordance between verbal and physiological behavior.

Thus, these subjects maintained an attentive set, but

evaluated the stimuli as aversive instead of interesting.

The authors concluded that "It is conceivable that the

tactile assault of shock is necessary to consistently elicit

DR's to such potentially skin mordant stimuli as snakes and

spiders," (p.555).











Psychophysiological responses of HR and skin

conductance have been measured during anticipation of

electric shock. Deane (1961) found that during anticipation

of shock, HR accelerated over the baseline level.

Additionally, in the groups who expected to receive shock

when a 'target' number was presented, there was HR

deceleration immediately preceding that number, even though,

in one of these groups no shock had ever been received.

These finding have been replicated (Elliot, 1966; Deane,

1969; Hodges & Spielberger, 1966). Threat of electric shock

has also been found to produce increases in SCR (Bowers,

1971a, 1971b). Positron emission tomography (PET)

measurements of regional blood flow have also been obtained

during anticipation of electric shock (Reiman, Fusselman,

Fox, & Raichle, 1989). Reiman and colleagues found that

during anticipatory anxiety, there was significant blood

flow increases to both temporal poles.

The investigation of the psychophysiology of pleasant

and appetitive anticipation has received minimal attention

in the experimental human literature. Consequently,

psychophysiological responding during pleasant anticipation

must be inferred from other studies. Based on the results

of the above literature, it is likely that anticipation of

pleasant stimuli would evoke physiological changes similar

to those found during presentation of pleasant stimuli

(i.e., increased zygomatic EMG and SCR). Also, based on the











above studies of anticipation during nonaversive

anticipation (Simons, et al., 1979; Klorman & Ryan, 1980),

HR is primarily deceleratory.

Summary

Psychophysiological measures of heart rate (HR), skin

conductance responding (SCR), corrugator electromyography

(CEMG), and zygomatic electromyography (ZEMG) have all been

used as indices of emotional psychophysiology. Alone, each

of these measures has been associated with various

psychological phenomenon. For example, SCR has been

associated with mental effort, attentive movements or

attitudes, painful stimuli, variations in respiratory rate,

along with emotional arousal and various other psychological

phenomenon Cacioppo & Tassinary, 1990). Increased heart

rate has also been associated with various psychological

phenomenon including startle, mental effort, and defensive

responding Cacioppo & Tassinary, 1990). In addition,

corrugatcr electromycgraphy has been associated with

concentration as well as unpleasant emotional experience

,Cacioo, e, t & Morris, 1985 .

Because chances in heart rate, skin conductance, and

facial EMG have all been fiund to be associated with

psychological phenomenon other than emotional experience,

changes in one cf these variables is not necessarily

indicative of emotional experience. However, examination of

multiple variables over time has revealed specific









51

physiological response patterning which results in a one-to-

one relationship with experience of emotional states. Thus,

it is necessary to investigate patterns of physiological

behavior over time in order to infer the presence of a

psychological phenomenon based on physiological responding

(Cacioppo & Tassinary, 1990).

Critical Issues

As reviewed earlier, there are two cc:rsing views of

how the cerebral hemispheres differ in their contributions

to emotional processing. However, the precise role played

by each hemisphere remains unclear. Some investigators have

proposed that the right hemisphere is globally involved in

all aspects of emotional processing including evaluation,

expression, activation, and experience of emotion (Heilman

et al., 1985). Others researchers have suggested that each

hemisphere is specialized fcr a different type of emotion

(Fox & Davidson, 1984; Kinsbourne & Bemporad, 1984; Tucker,

1981; Heller, 1990). The mcso popular version of the

bivalent view is that the lef- hemisphere is dominant for

positive/approach emotions, while the right hemisphere is

dominant for negative/avoidance emotions.

Alona with differences in laterality of emotional

processing, investiga-trs have speculated about differences

in emotional processing based on caudality, i.e., anterior

versus posterior regions cf the brain. For example, studies

of interpretation of emotional information implicate the











right temporal and parietal regions (e.g., Bowers et al.,

1987), whereas studies of emotional mood have implicated the

frontal lobes (e.g., Davidson, 1984).

Heller (1990) has interpreted the literature in terms

of type of emotional processing, such that "cold" or

nonexperienced emotional processing is modulated by the

right posterior region. In addition, she posited that

"warm" or experienced positive emotion is processed

predominantly by the left hemisphere, whereas "warm or

experienced negative emotion is processed predominantly by

the right hemisphere. According to Helier, the majority of

evidence in support of the right hemisphere model of emotion

comes from studies which have investigated cognitive

processing of information in brain damaged and normal

subjects, whereas most evidence in support of the bivalent

models cf emotion has been derived from lateralization of

mood states. Heller suggested that there is no reason to

assume that because a hemisphere is associated with a

particular mood state, that it must be specific for

cognitive representations of that emotion.

In order to distinguish among the ability of the global

and bivalent models nc explain emotional experience, it is

necessary to evoke emccion with both positive/approach and

negative/withdrawal emotions. Because RHD patients have

difficulty interpreting emotional stimuli, including faces

and prosody (e.g., Bowers et al., 1987), it is difficult to









53
evoke emotional states in the laboratory. Thus, using an in

vivo situation in which nonverbal emotional stimuli do not

have to be interpreted would be useful in evoking emotion in

RHD patients. Ideally, it is crucial for positive and

negative emotions to be equally arousing. Unfortunately, it

is difficult to equate in vivo positive and negative

emotional experiences in emotional arousal because highly

arousing negative emotional experience is much easier to

experimentally induce than highly arousing positive

emotional experience.

It is important to define emotional experience and how

it can be measured. As mentioned above, emotional

experience is defined as a phenomenon which can be

indirectly measured using physiological measures (e.g., HR

and SCR), overt behavior (e.g., facial expression, in this

case measured using CEMG and ZEMG), and verbal report (e.g.,

paper and pencil assessment measures In normal subjects

these three response systems have usually been found to be

concordant; however, discordant responses have been revealed

in pathological populations "Patrick, Bradley, & Lang,

1991). These discordant results may imply that the three

response systems are mediated by different subsystems. In

brain damaged patients discordance is often observed. For

example, patients with pseudobulhar laughter display cvert

behaviors cf emotion, but verbally deny feelings associated

with emotion ,Heilman, Bowers, & Valestein, 1993) These









54
results imply that there is a defect in the mediation output

systems, such that behaviorally the patient responds, but

without the corresponding subjective experience of emotion.

Due to the inability in directly measuring subjective

experience, the ability to interpret discordance in response

systems is weakened. To illustrate, two groups, A and B,

are investigated during emotion-eliciting experiences. Both

A and B verbally report experiencing emotion. However,

group A does not exhibit psychophysiological measures

indicative of emotion. Are the subjective emotional

experiences of group A and B different? There are two

possible interpretations: (1) they are experiencing

qualitatively different emotional experiences, such that

group A's experience of emotion is more "cognitive" than

group B's experience, or (2) they are experiencing the same

emotional experiences, but group A has a problem with the

feedforward system of emotional psychophysiological

responding. Because interpretation includes inferences

about subjective experiences, neither interpretation can be

proven correct or rejected as invalid. It is unclear, at

this time, how patients with unilateral damage experience

emotion based on the interaction of these three response

systems. Specifically, it is unknown whether unilateral

lesions would produce concordance or discordance of

emotional experience.










It is important to consider the constraints that are

placed on evaluating emotional experience in patients with

focal lesions. For example, left hemisphere damaged

patients often have difficulty with language, which may

affect their verbal report data. To minimize this problem

in the present study, severely aphasic patients would not be

used and only verbal report measures with simple language

were used. Also, right hemisphere damaged patients often

have difficulties with visual attention, neglect, and

vigilance. Consequently, adequate attention to the task at

hand must be insured among RHD patients.

To study emotional experience, it is important to

measure all three response systems; verbal report, overt

behaviors, and physiological indices. One way to better

understand the neuropsychology of emotional experience is to

use paradigms which are highly sensitive to emotional

responding. The present study focused on an anticipation

paradigm (Reiman et al., 1989) designed to investigate

verbal report, heart rate, skin conductance, and facial

responses associated with emotion. In order to examine the

psychophysiology of emotional experience, an "in vivo"

situation was used. Using anticipation of "in vivo"

aversive and pleasant stimuli, it was easier for patients to

interpret the emotional meaning of the situations because

they did not have to analyze the affective quality of

various perceptual stimuli.















CHAPTER 2
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM


The purpose of the present study was to broadly examine

emotional responsivity of RHD and LHD patients in affect-

evoking situations and determine whether the pattern of

responses obtained from these patients was more in line with

predictions of a global right hemisphere model versus a

bivalent hemisphere emotion model. To examine this verbal

report, autonomic measures of arousal (SCR, HR), and indices

of facial muscle movement (EMG) were be collected in

situations that are known to elicit negative (anticipation

of shock) and positive responses (anticipation of reward) in

normals.

To date, few neuropsychological studies of emotion with

focal lesion patients have concurrently investigated more

than one component of emotional responsivity. That is,

either autonomic indices have been obtained (Heilman,

Schwartz, & Watson, 1978) or verbal report of mood states

have been obtained (Robinson & Price, 1982). No study to

date has used facial EMG to examine emotional responsivity

in focal lesion patients. Facial EMG may potentially be a

useful tool in that it has been shown to be sensitive to










changes in the reported experience of valence in normal

individuals (Greenwald et al., 1989).

Further, those patient studies that have examined

psychophysiological indices of arousal in response to

emotional stimuli have typically used perceptual stimuli

(i.e., affective scenes) which must be accurately

"interpreted" in order to induce emotion. Patients with RHD

are known to have an array of visuoperceptual and

hemispatial attentional scanning difficulties which can

potentially interfere with their interpretation of such

stimuli. Consequently, findings that RHD patients are

autonomically hypoaroused in response to emotional scenes

may, in part, be secondary to difficulties in interpreting

these stimuli.

To avoid such confounding, the present study used "in

vivo" situations to elicit negative and positive emotions

among focal lesion patients. An anticipatory anxiety

paradigm adopted from Reiman et al. (1989) was used to

induce negative emotion (i.e., anxiety). In this paradigm,

subjects are told that they would sometimes receive a mild

shock. Findings with normals reveal changes in autonomic

arousal during the period that the subject is awaiting shock

in conjunction with self reports of increased levels of

anxiety (as measured by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory).

An anticipatory reward paradigm was used to induce positive

emotion. Here, subjects were told that they would sometimes










receive monetary reward (i.e., dollar bills or lottery

tickets).

The specific objectives of this study are to determine:

(a) whether patients with RHD or LHD become autonomically

aroused in these in vivo emotional situations (as indexed by

HR and SCR changes); (b) whether they display contraction of

facial muscles (as measured by EMG indices) that correspond

to the positive-negative nature of the emotional situation;

and (c) whether they explicitly report subjective changes in

their emotional experiences (as measured by their responses

to questionnaires).

According to the global right hemisphere emotion model,

the RHD patients should display attenuated responsivity

across all three response domains (arousal, facial, verbal

report) in both the negative and positive emotion-eliciting

situations. In other words, relative to the LHD group, the

RHD patients should be less autonomically aroused, show

minimal facial muscle contractions, and report less intense

changes in their subjective experience of emotion.

Diminished responding by RHD patients would be observed in

both the anticipatory anxiety paradigm, as well as the

anticipatory reward task.

According to the bivalent hemisphere emotion model, the

responses of the RHD and LHD patients would vary as a

function of the positive-negative nature of the induced

emotional situation. Specifically, the RHD group would show










diminished autonomic responsivity and less intense reports

of emotional experience in the anticipatory anxiety task

relative to the anticipatory reward task, whereas the LHD

group would show the opposite pattern.

Overview of Experimental Design

Patients with RHD, LHD, and NHD participated in two

experiments. Both experiments consisted of two parts, an

anticipatory anxiety task and an anticipatory reward task.

In the first experiment, a two-stimulus paradigm (see Vrana,

Cuthbert, & Lang, 1989) was used in both the anticipatory

anxiety and anticipatory reward tasks. Specifically, one

warning tone signaled that the subject would receive shock

stimulation during the subsequent six seconds, whereas the

other tone signaled that shock would not occur. Prior to

the beginning of the task, subjects learned which tone would

be associated with shock and which with no shock. An

analogous two-stimulus paradigm was used in the anticipatory

reward task. Psychophysiological measures of arousal (HR,

SCR) and facial E'- corrugatorr and zygomatic) were obtained

during the six second anticipatory interval.

In the second experiment, a slightly different paradigm

was used to examine anticipatory anxiety and reward in RHD

and LHD patients. Specifically, there was a 5 minute

interval (versus 6 seconds in Experiment 1) during which the

subject awaited shock (or reward). Five-minute control

trials were also be given in which the subject is told that










no shock (or reward) would be presented. During these 5-

minute anticipatory intervals, subjects were administered

brief mood questionnaires (i.e., Positive and Negative

Affect Schedule and Self-Assessment Manikin).

The use of the 5-minute paradigm in Experiment 2 is

more suitable for obtaining self-report information, whereas

the use of 6-second two-stimulus paradigm in Experiment 1 is

more suitable for obtaining reliable brief

psychophysiological indices of emotion.

Hypotheses and Predictions

Overall Hypotheses

According to the global right hemisphere model, emotion

is modulated predominantly by the right hemisphere.

Consequently, the global model hypothesizes that patients

with RHD will display attenuated responsivity, relative to

the LHD group, across all three response domains (arousal,

facial, and verbal report) in both negative and positive

emotion-evoking situations.

In contrast, the bivalent model posits that

positive/approach emotions are mediated by the left

hemisphere and negative/avoidance emotions are mediated by

the right hemisphere. According to the bivalent model, the

responses of the RHD and LHD patients would vary as a

function of valence (positive-negative nature) of the

induced emotion. Specifically, the RHD group would show

diminished responses in all three response domains (arousal,










facial, and verbal report) during the anticipatory anxiety

(negative emotion) situation relative to their responses

during anticipatory reward (positive emotion). The LHD

group would show the opposite pattern.

Specific Predictions for Experiment 1: Psychophysiological
Arousal and Facial EMG during Anticipatory Anxiety and
Anticipatory Reward in Patients with RHD and LHD


Normal control group (NHD)

In line with previous research, it is anticipated that

the normal control group (NHD) will experience unpleasant

emotion (anticipatory anxiety) during the shock anticipation

condition and more pleasant emotion (anticipatory reward)

during the prize anticipation. Specific predictions

regarding psychophysiological responsivity (HR, SCR) and

facial EMG are derived from empirical research with emotion-

inducing stimuli. A replication of previous findings is

expected such that:

1. Compared to baseline HR, a HR triphasic response (Dl,

Al, D2) will be observed during shock anticipation and

prize anticipation. The Al, acceleratory peak, is

expected to be greater during shock than during prize

anticipation. In some subjects, however, deceleration

only may be observed during prize anticipation.

Relative to the experimental trials, attenuated HR

change will occur during control trials.

2. Compared to baseline SCR, SCR will be greater during

shock and prize anticipation compared to no shock/no









62
reward control trials. Additionally, SCR will decrease

over trials.

3. Compared to baseline corrugator EMG, corrugator EMG

(CEMG) will be elevated during shock anticipation and

will remain relatively unchanged during prize and

control trials.

4. Compared to baseline zygomatic EMG, zygomatic EMG (ZEMG)

will increase during prize anticipation. Additionally,

a smaller increase may be revealed during shock

anticipation. Also, ZEMG will not change from baseline

during control trials.

Focal Lesion Patients (RHD and LHD)

Predictions for the RHD and LHD patients differ

depending on the global right hemisphere emotion model

versus the bivalent model. Specific predictions for the

right hemisphere emotion model will be first presented and

then followed by those from the bivalent model.

A) Global Right Hemisphere Emotion Model: According to this

view, patients with right hemisphere damage are relatively

blunted in their emotional responsivity and experience of

emotion. Thus, RHD patients will experience less anxiety

and positive feelings during the shock and prize conditions,

respectively, relative to the NHD and LHD subjects. In

contrast, LHD patients may experience more intense emotional

responsivity than NHD subjects. Specific predictions are as

follows:










1. During shock and prize anticipation, LHD subjects will

display similar or accentuated HR response patterns

compared to normal controls, whereas RHD subjects will

display decreased HR responding rel-tive to normal

controls. HR responding will be greater for the LHD

and NHD groups during shock and prize trials compared

to control trials. HR responding for the RHD group-

will not differ between shock, prize and no shock/no

reward control trials.

2. During both shock and prize anticipation, LHD patients

will display greater SCR than the normal controls. For

the RHD patients, SCR will be smaller than that of the

LHD and NHD patients. SCR will be greater during shock

and prize trials than control trials for the LHD and

NHD groups, whereas the difference in SCR for the RHD

group between shock, prize, no shock/no reward control

trials will be smaller.

3. During shock anticipation, corrugator EMG reactivity

will be similar or greater for LHD compared to the NHD

patients, whereas RHD patients will show smaller

corrugator EMG compared to NHD patients. For LHD and

NHD patients corrugator EMG will be greater for shock

trials than no shock trials. However, differences in

corrugator EMG will be smaller between shock and no

shock control trials in RHD patients.








64

4. During prize anticipation, zygomatic EMG reactivity will

be similar or greater for LHD compared to NHD patients,

whereas RHD patients will show smaller zygomatic EMG

compared to NHD patients. For LHD and NHD groups,

zygomatic EMG will be greater for prize compared to no

reward trials. However, differences in zygomatic EMG

will be attenuated between prize and no prize control

trials in RHD patients.

B) Bivalent Emotion Model: According to this view, patients

with RHD should demonstrate attenuated anxiety during the

shock anticipation condition (relative to NHD controls), and

either normal or enhanced pleasant feelings during

anticipatory reward condition. In contrast, patients with

LHD should demonstrate attenuated pleasant feelings during

the anticipatory reward condition (relative to NHD subjects)

and either normal or enhanced negative feelings during the

anticipatory shock task. These results may be most

pronounced in patients with anterior-extending lesions.

Specific predictions are as follows:

1. During shock anticipation, the LHD subjects will have

greater or similar HR responding compared to the NHD

group, whereas RHD subjects will have smaller HR

responding relative to NHD subjects. Additionally, LHD

and NHD patients will display greater HR responding

during shock relative to no shock trials, whereas HR

responding in RHD patients will not differ between










shock and no shock trials. During prize anticipation,

RHD subjects will have greater or similar HR responding

compared to normal controls, whereas LHD patients will

have smaller HR responding relative to NHD patients.

Also, RHD and NHD groups will display greater HR

responding during prize relative to no reward control

trials, whereas LHD patients will not differ between

prize and no prize trials.

2. During shock anticipation, the LHD patients will have

greater or similar SCR compared to NHD controls and RHD

patients will have smaller SCR compared to NHD

controls. Also, LHD and NHD subjects will have greater

SCR during shock compared to no shock trials, whereas

SCR will not differ between shock and no shock trials

in RHD patients. During prize anticipation, however,

RHD patients will have greater SCR than NHD patients,

while the LHD patients will have smaller SCR than NHD

subjects. Similarly, RHD and NHD patients will have

greater SCR during prize compared to no prize trials,

whereas SCR will not differ between prize and no reward

trials in LHD patients.

3. During shock anticipation, the RHD subjects will have

smaller CEMG compared to NHD patients, while the LHD

group will have greater or equal corrugator EMG

compared to NHD patients. Compared to control trials,

LHD and NHD groups will show accentuated corrugator EMG








66

during shock trials, whereas RHD patients will exhibit

no differences.

4. During prize anticipation, the RHD will have greater or

equal ZEMG compared to the NHD group which will have

greater zygomatic EMG compared to LHD group. Relative

to no reward control trials, RHD and NHD subjects will

display increased zygomatic EMG during reward trials,

whereas LHD patients will show no differences.


Specific Predictions for Experiment 2: Subjective Report of
Emotion during Anticipatory Anxiety and Reward Tasks by RHD,
LHD, and NHD Patients


The hypotheses and predictions for this experiment are

similar in kind to those of Experiment 1.

Normal control group (NHD)

1. In line with previous research, it is expected that the

NHD group will report greater state anxiety during the

shock than no shock control trials.

2. Similarly, during prize anticipation, NHD group will

report more intense positive emotions than during the

no prize control trials

Focal lesion patients (RHD and LHD)

A) Global Right Hemisphere Emotion Model: The predictions

of this model are as follows:

1. During shock anticipation, the LHD and NHD groups will

report greater anxiety (based on state anxiety scores

on the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, dimensional










ratings of unpleasantness, arousal, powerlessness on

the Self Assessment Manikin, and the negative affect

factor score of the Positive and Negative Affect

Schedule) than the RHD group. The LHD and NHD groups

will report greater state anxiety during shock than no

shock control trials. The difference in reported

anxiety will be attenuated in RHD patients between

shock and no shock control trials.

2. During prize anticipation, the LHD and NHD subjects will

report greater positive emotions (based on dimensional

ratings of pleasantness, arousal, and dominance on the

Self Assessment Manikin, and the positive affect factor

score of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule)

compared to the RHD. LHD and NHD groups will report

more positive emotions during prize compared to no

reward trials. The difference in reported positive

emotions will be smaller during prize compared to no

reward trials in RHD patients.

B) Bivalent Emotion Model: Predictions based on the

bivalent view are:

1. During shock anticipation, the LHD subjects will report

greater or equal anxiety compared to the NHD patients,

whereas RHD subjects will report less anxiety than the

NHD group. More anxiety will be reported during shock

compared to no shock trials for LHD and NHD patients.









68
RHD will report no differences in anxiety between shock

and no shock trials.

2. During prize anticipation, the RHD will report more or

equal positive emotion compared to the NHD patients,

whereas LHD subjects will report less more positive

emotions than the NHD group. Also, RHD and NHD

subjects will report more positive emotion during prize

compared to no reward control trials. LHD patients

will report no differences in positive affect between

prize and no reward trials.















CHAPTER 3


Subjects

A total of 48 right handed patients were included in

the study. Handedness was determined by Briggs and Nebes

(1975) abbreviated version of Annett's (1970) questionnaire.

The stroke patients were recruited through clinics,

laboratories, and medical records at Shands Teaching

Hospital at the University of Florida and the Veteran's

Administration Hospital in Gainesville. Additionally, other

subjects were recruited through neurologists, physical

therapists, and stroke clubs in the north central Florida

region. Control subjects were recruited through

laboratories at Shands Hospital and the VA, volunteer

services at the VA hospital, as well as from other local

senior groups.

All subjects were alert, cooperative, and oriented to

time, place, and person. The population consisted of four

groups; 12 patients with right hemisphere ischemic

infarctions (RHD), 12 patients with left hemisphere ischemic

infarctions (LHD), and 24 patients without neurologic

disease (12 were controls for the RHD group and 12 were

controls for the LHD group). Attempts were made to match

sex, age, and level of education across groups. There were










12 males in both the RHD and the RH NC groups. In the LHD

and LH NC groups there were 11 males and 1 female within

each group. Separate analyses of variance (ANOVA) were

used with group (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS) as the between

subject factor to determine if there were any group

differences in age and education. There was no significant

difference in the age of the subjects between each group.

The means and standard deviations for age of each group are

as follows: RHD=63.01(9.74), RH NCS=63.92(10.63),

LHD=66.75(7.59), LH NCS=68.67(7.35).

There was also no significant differences between the

number of years of education for subjects between each

group. The means and standard deviations of years of

education for each cr:i..p are as follows: RHD=13.08(3.97),

RH NCS=14.25(2.83), LHD=12.79(2.60), LH NCS=13.83(3.95).

The ANOVA tables for the analyses examining age and

education are presented below.

AGE

SS DF MS F SIG of
F
GROUP 238.729 3 79.576 .996 .404

ERROR 3514.750 44 79.881

EDUCATION

SS DF MS F SIG of
F
GROUP 16.182 3 5.394 0.468 0.706

ERROR 507.563 44 11.536











Any patient with a pacemaker was excluded. All

subjects were questioned about hearing and visual defects.

All medications taken by the subjects on the day of the

psychophysiological measurements were recorded and a list of

these medications is provided in Table B-l, B-2, B-3, and B-

4 of Appendix B.

All subjects were administered the Zung Depression

Rating Scale. No group differences were found in their self

report of depression on the Zung [F(3,41) = 2.134, P =

.1107]. The mean scores and standard deviations on the Zung

are as follows: LHD (mean=38.636, sd=5.29); LH NCS

(mean=36.091, sd=5.28); RHD (mean=40.167, sd=7.814); RH NCS

(mean=34.091, sd=5.991).

The RHD and LHD subjects all had a CT or MRI performed

for clinical purposes. To be included, patients had a

discrete abnormal area compatible with cerebral infarction

on the head scan. Patients with tumors, hemorrhages,

trauma, or bilateral cerebral infarcts were excluded. All

subjects were tested at least 5 months post stroke in order

to control for possible changes in autonomic responsivity

over time. A t-test was conducted to examine group

differences in the amount of time since the last cortical

stroke. No differences were found between the groups

[T(1,22) = .588, P = .5626]. The average time in months for

the LHD group was 78, sd=72.72 and the average time in

months for the RHD group was 60.92, sd=69.59.


_ _








72

Using the atlas of Damasio and Damasio (1989), lesions

from the patients' CT scans were projected onto templates by

a board certified neurologist (K.H.), who was unaware of

patients' performance. Based on their scans, the

neurologist divided the stroke patients into anterior,

posterior, and mixed groups. Lesions were termed

"posterior" if located behind the central fissure or within

the posterior temporal lobe. Lesions located in front of

the central sulcus or involving the anterior temporal lobe

were considered "anterior." Lesions were considered

"primarily anterior" if they also involved the primary

sensory areas or Heschl's gyrus and "primarily posterior" if

they involved the primary motor areas. Lesions involving

both anterior and posterior regions, and/or regions between

them were considered "mixed."

All of the scans were then ranked from largest to

smallest lesion by the neurologist. The rankings were

analyzed using an independent samples Wilcoxon Test of

Ranked Sums to explore the group differences in size of

lesion. No significant differences was found between the

RHD and LHD groups [W = 141.0, P = 0.6075].

A summary of the neurological information for each

subject is provided in separate tables for each group. See

Tables B-5 and B-6 in Appendix B.










Baseline Evaluation

The baseline evaluation included a review of

neurological records along with a neuropsychological and

psychophysiological screening. All patients' neurological

records were reviewed by a neurologist prior to acceptance

into the study. All patients psychophysiological responses

to a series of 60db tones was assessed. The

psychophysiological screening is described more fully in the

procedure section for experiment 1. The neuropsychological

screening is described below.

All patients were administered the Information and

Similarities subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence

Scale-Revised (WAIS-R), Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised

(Orientation, Digit Span, Logical Stories I,II and Visual

Reproductions I, II subtests), Benton Facial Recognition

Test, Western Aphasia Battery (Spontaneous Speech, Auditory

Comprehension, Repetition, and Naming subtests), Florida

Neglect Battery (shortened version including line bisection,

cancellation, visual extinction, tactile extinction, and

draw/copy a clock). The average performance on these

measures by group is presented in Table B-7. Individual

subjects' performance on these measures are presented in

Tables B-8, B-9, B-10, and B-ll in Appendix B.

T-tests were conducted to examine group differences in

neuropsychological functioning. Examination of the WAIS-R

subtests revealed that the LHD subjects had signicantly








74
lower scores on information compared with the CONS, but not

the RHD subjects. There were no significant group

differences on the similarities subtest of the WAIS-R. Both

the LHD and RHD subjects had significantly decreased digit

span forward and backwards compared to the CONs.

Results of memory testing revealed that the LHD

subjects scores on immediate recall on Logical Memory were

significantly lower than controls. However, after a delay,

the RHD subjects had significantly poorer recall compared to

the CONs. On both Logical Memory I and II, there were no

differences between the LHD and RHD subjects. RHD subjects

performed worse on Visual Reproductions I and II compared

with CONs, but not LHD subjects.

Language testing revealed that the LHD subjects had

more difficulty with comprehension and had a lower overall

Aphasia Quiotent compared with CONs and RHD subjects.

All Ss were also administered the Florida Affect

Battery. Their results on this test are provided in Tables

B-12, B-13, B-14, and B-15 in Appendix B.

Experiment 1: Psychophysiological Arousal and Facial EMG
during Anticipatory Anxiety and Anticipatory Reward in
Patients with RHD and LHD

This experiment consisted of two parts, an anticipatory

anxiety and an anticipatory reward task. In both, a two

stimulus paradigm was used whereby subjects were told that

one target tone would signal the occurrence of shock or

reward during the following 6 seconds, whereas a second









75

target tone indicated that nothing would occur during the 6

second interval. Autonomic measures of arousal (HR, SCR)

and facial EMG measures were obtained. The order of the

anticipatory anxiety task and the anticipatory reward tasks

was counterbalanced across subjects in each group.

Stimuli and Apparatus

The electrical stimuli was delivered by a Grass S88

Stimulator and Isolation Unit. A Zenith Data Systems AT

clone computer was programmed to deliver one high tone

(usually 800 or 1000 Hz) as a warning stimulus at 60 db for

one second. The computer also interacted with the

stimulator such that six seconds after presentation of a

specific tone, a shock was administered. The presentation

of a low tone (usually 400 or 600 HZ) was not followed by a

shock. For the reward task, the computer produced one high

and one low tone. Six seconds after the high tone, the

screen produced a message stating how many dollars or

lottery tickets the subject had won so far and a picture of

a smiling face. Six seconds after the low tone, nothing

occurred.

Stimulus presentation and data storage was controlled

by customized application software. Equipment for recording

heartbeat (HR), skin conductance rate (SCR), corrugator

electromyography (CEMG), and zygomatic electromyography

(ZEMG) included a set of Colbourn Instruments data











acquisition modules, a DT2805 Multifunction Board, and a

Zenith Data Systems AT clone computer.

Heartbeat was monitored by a Colbourn Instruments EKG

Coupler recorded from standard lead II. Colbourn

Instruments Bipolar comparator was used to detect the R-peak

of the EKG. Sampling occurred at 200 Hz. The output of the

Schmitt trigger was sampled at the digital input port of a

DT2805 Multifunction Board installed in a Zenith Data

Systems AT clone computer.

Skin conductance was measured by attaching 4-mm Ag/AgCl

electrodes to the thenar and hypothenar eminences of the

palm ipsilateral to the lesion. To control for possible

hand effects NHD subjects were divided into left hemisphere

normal control (LH NC) and right hemisphere normal control

(RH NC) groups. The LH NC group had electrodes placed on

their left hand and the RH NCs had electrodes placed on

their right hand. One LHD subject had skin conductance

measured on his right hand because his left arm had been

amputated. Since recent evidence (Tranel & Damasio, 1994)

suggests that brain damage subjects do not display

differential skin conductance between their right and left

hands, it was decided to include this subject in the SCR

analyses. A 0.05 m NaC1 electrolyte (Johnson & Johnson K Y

Jelly) was used. Colbourn Instruments Skin Conductance

module S71-22 was used to condition the SC signal. This is

a constant voltage system which passes 0.5v across the palm










during the recording. Sampling occurred at 20 Hz. The

analog SC signal was then be digitized by the Multifunction

board, which physically resides in the backplane of the

Compaq computer. Software control was accomplished by

customized programs.

Corrugator and zygomatic EMG was recorded using 2-mm

Ag/AgCl electrodes placed unilaterally over the corrugator

and bilaterally over the zygomatic muscle regions after the

skin was cleansed with 70% EtOH. Zygomatic EMG was

collected bilaterally because motoneuron pathways which

innervate the lower face are largely contralateral (Rinn,

1984). On the other hand, corrugator EMG was collected

ipsilaterally because motorneurons innervating the upper

face muscles are for the most part, bilateral (Rinn, 1984).

Additionally, to control for possible laterality effects,

the LH NCs had electrodes placed over their left brow and

the RH NCs had electrodes placed over their left. Muscle

regions were designated using the placement specified by

Tassinary, Cacioppo, & Geen (1989). Four Colbourn model

S75-01 High Gain Bioamplifiers with bandpass filters were

used to record the signals. Filter level was set at 90-1000

Hz and coupling at 10 Hz (Fridlund & Cacioppo, 1986). Data

was integrated with Colbourn model S76-01 Contour Following

Integrator with a time constant set at 500 milliseconds.

Sampling rate was 20 Hz.











Procedure

At the beginning of each test session, there was

approximately a 5 minute adaption period during which the

recording electrodes had been applied and the subject

relaxed while sitting in a comfortable chair in a climate

controlled shielded room. Following this adaption period,

basic physiologic reactivity (HR, SCR) to a series of 24

tones, in 8 blocks of three with two tones at 400 Hz and one

at 100 Hz (each at 60 db for .5 seconds) was measured and

the course of orienting and habituation was assessed.

The anticipatory anxiety paradigm adopted from Reiman

et al. (1989) to induce negative emotion and reward portion

of the study to evoke positive emotion were given

independently and the order in which they were given was

counterbalanced by subject for each group. For both the

anticipatory anxiety and anticipatory reward, there was 40

trials: 20 control and 20 experimental shock or reward

trials. Each trial began with a meditation period of 2 to 3

seconds, where subjects repeated the number one silently to

themselves, followed by one of four tones (between 500 and

1500 Hz for 1 second at 60db). Physiological measurements

were recorded during the last second of each baseline period

through the six second interstimulus interval and through

the six second stimulus and recovery period.










Anticipatory shock task

Before beginning the anticipatory anxiety task, each

subject choose the intensity of shock. This was done by

increasing voltage from 0 volts in five volt increments.

Half second shocks were administered after each increase in

voltage until the subject found the shock intensity

"uncomfortable but not painful."

Before the onset of the session, subjects were told

which of two tones corresponded to shock trials and which

corresponded to control trials. This two-stimulus paradigm

is similar to that used by Vrana, et al. (1989) in which a

warning signal is followed six seconds later by an electric

shock. The subjects were instructed that during the shock

trials at tone offset (after hearing the high tone), there

will be a 6 second interstimulus interval which will be

followed by a shock. In addition, the subjects were told

that when they heard the low tone, it signaled that in six

seconds, nothing would happen.

Anticipatory reward task

At the beginning of the sessions, subjects were told

which tone would indicate that they would receive a dollar

(or lottery ticket) and which tone was not associated with

reward. The higher tone always designated reward. The

designated tone for the reward trials was followed by a six-

second interval after which a message appeared on the

computer screen. The message read "You have won -- dollars"










and a smiling face. The number on the message corresponded

to the total number of dollars and/or lottery tickets won.

As in the anticipatory anxiety task, the tone designating

the control trials, the low tone, was not followed by

anything.

For both the shock and reward tasks, a square appeared

on the screen, during the 6 second period between tone and

stimulus. A cross gradually enlarged within the square. By

the end of the six seconds, the cross would touch each side

of the square and the screen would go blank. Since it is

unclear how patients with cortical strokes estimate time,

the square and growing cross were used to control for time

estimation by helping all of the subjects keep tract of time

during the six second period.

During both the anticipatory shock and anticipatory

reward tasks, the procedure was interrupted after each block

of 10 trials. At that time, the experimenter entered the

room and administered to the subjects the three-item Self-

Assessment Manikin (SAM) (Hodes, Cook, & Lang, 1985). The

SAM, which is described below, is designed as a self-report

measure of valence (pleasantness-unpleasantness), arousal,

and dominance (control).

The Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) measures subjective

ratings of three independent affective dimensions which have

been derived from factor analytic studies (Hodes, Cook, &

Lang, 1985). The three dimensions include valence (pleasant










to unpleasant), arousal (aroused to calm), and control

(dominance to submission). There are both computer and

paper and pencil versions of SAM. In this study, a paper

and pencil version of SAM in which each dimension was

presented as a series of five cartoon characters was be

used. For the valence dimension, SAM's facial expression

gradually changes from a smile to a frown. Arousal is

denoted by increased activity in the abdomen to no activity

and wide eyes to closed eyes. Control is represented from a

very large character who gradually shrinks in size to a very

small character.

During both the anticipatory shock and the anticipatory

reward tasks, subjects were asked to rate how they felt

using the SAM. This was done after each block of 10 trials,

so that two ratings were obtained after each of the

following conditions: shock anticipation, anticipation of

no shock, reward anticipation, anticipation of no reward.

Data Reduction

Heart rate

First raw data was examined. Based on the subjects

data as a whole, missing beats and double beats were

estimated and corrected. Next, a computer program was used

to more thoroughly determine missed beats and double beats.

Double beats were removed from the data set. The computer

used the surrounding beats to estimate the missing beats.

Average half second beats/minute were obtained for each










condition for four blocks, each containing five control

trials and five stimulus trials. An average baseline score

was derived for the high and low tones for each trial block.

Beats per minute change was then determined by subtracting

the baseline value from each half second beats/minute

average for each trial block. Those values were then used

to designate average Dl, Al, and D2 for each subject for the

stimuli and control blocks within each condition. D1 was

designated as the lowest point within the first 3 seconds.

The highest point following D1 was considered Al. D2 was

the lowest point following Al. If the last value in the six

second period was the Al, D2 and Al were the same.

Skin conductance

A computer program calculated baseline, skin

conductance response (change from baseline), range-corrected

skin conductance response scores (minimum and maximum values

within each experimental condition was used in the

calculations), and half recovery time. Data was divided

into four blocks, each containing five control trials and

five stimulus trials. One average range-corrected SCR was

calculated for each stimuli and control block within each

condition. Additionally, range corrected SCR was also

recorded by changing all values under .02 micro ohms to zero.

An average recorded range corrected SCR was calculated for

each stimulus and control block within each condition.










Facial electromyoqraphy

A computer program calculated baseline corrugator

electromyography (CEMG), left zygomatic electromyography

(ZGL), and right zygomatic electromyography (ZGR) along with

average CEMG, ZGL, and ZGR over the six second period for

each block within each experimental condition. As a

consequence, for each trial block, there was one baseline

and one average score for each stimulus and control trial

for each of the three facial muscles regions: CEMG, ZGL,

ZGR. Difference scores for each of the variables was

obtained for each block by subtracting the average score

from the average baseline score for each subject.

Experiment 2: Subiective Report of Emotion During
Anticipatory Shock and Reward Tasks by RHD, LHD, and NHD
Patients

This experiment also consisted of two parts, an

anticipatory anxiety task and an anticipatory reward task.

Both were similar in kind to those of Experiment 1 except

that a 5 minute anticipatory interval was used in this study

in order to give the subjects time to complete verbal report

questionnaires about their affective state during

anticipation. In this experiment, the anticipatory shock

task and the anticipatory reward task were counterbalanced

by subject within each group.

Stimuli and Apparatus

The stimuli and apparatus used to dispense the shocks

were identical to used in Experiment 1. Additionally, two










verbal report measures of affective states were given.

These included the Self Assessment Manikin and the Positive

and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) (Watson, Clark, &

Tellegen, 1988). The SAM was described in the methods for

Experiment 1 above. The Positive and negative affect

schedule is comprised of two 10-item mood scales. Using

factor analysis positive affect (PA) and negative affect

(NA) factors have been identified. The directions used

were, "How are you feeling right now?" The experiment

inserted each item into the blank. Subjects were asked to

rate the intensity of each feeling on a scale of 1 to 5,

with 1 corresponding to "not at all" and 5 corresponding to

"extremely."

Procedure

This study consists of two parts, an anticipatory shock

task and an anticipatory reward tasks condition which were

counterbalanced, and described below.

Anticipatory shock task

This task had two parts, a shock and a no-shock

condition. In the shock condition, the subject waited five

minutes to receive a shock. Subjects were told that they

would receive a shock five minutes after hearing the warning

tone and that the strength of this shock was either the same

or greater than that previously given in Experiment 1. At

the end of the five minutes, subjects were given the same

intensity of shock they had previous received in Experiment










1. During the five minute anticipation period, negative

emotions were assessed using the Positive and Negative

Affect Schedule (PANAS) (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988),

and the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) (Hodes, Cook, & Lang,

1985). The experimenter read each item to the subjects and

recorded the responses.

In the no-shock task, subjects waited for a five minute

period with the understanding that they would not receive a

shock. The no-shock control condition consisted of a five

minute period during which time the subjects were

administered the PANAS and SAM.

Anticipatory reward task

The reward condition consisted of counterbalanced

reward and no-reward conditions. In the reward condition,

subjects waited to receive a reward. During the reward

condition, subjects were informed that they would receive

between 5 and 8 dollars, lottery tickets, or a combination

of both. Subjects were administered the PANAS and SAM while

waiting for the reward. In the no-reward condition,

subjects were informed that they were not receiving a

reward. The same questionnaires were administered during

the five minute no-reward condition.

Design Issues

A few problems inherent in the design of this project

are presented here. First, it is presumed that the positive

and negative emotions experienced in the anticipatory prize










and anticipatory shock situations will not be equal in

intensity even for the NHD group. Specifically, intensity

of anxiety/negative affect in anticipation of electric shock

will probably be greater than the intensity of joy/positive

affect in anticipation of a dollar or a lottery ticket.

However, due to financial constraints, it is not possible to

raise the financial value of the reward. Yet, by giving

each subject the choice between a dollar and a lottery

ticket, hopefully the intensity of the reward will be

maximized as each subject chooses the reward that is most

salient to him or her. In considering this problem, it may

be that autonomic, facial, and/or verbal responding are not

as pronounced as expected during the reward tasks. Yet, to

assume that differences in intensity of emotion contributed

to the lowered responsivity in the measured response

systems, attenuated responding would need to be evidenced in

all three subject groups.

Secondly, differences in baseline autonomic responding

may exist between the RHD patients, LHD patients, and normal

controls. This would make it difficult to separate deficits

in baseline autonomic responding, per se, from affective

autonomic responding. Consequently, baseline autonomic

responding will be examined in the psychophysiological

screening procedure.

Thirdly, it may be that the results of this study

provide partial support for both the global and bivalent








87

models of emotion. For example, autonomic arousal (SCR and

HR) may be mediated by the right hemisphere and hence RHD

patients would show diminished responding during both shock

and reward tasks. At the same time, facial activity, a more

accurate index of valence, may provide support for the

valence hypothesis such that RHD patients show reduced

corrugator muscle activity during negative emotions, but

accentuated zygomatic activity during positive emotion,

whereas LHD patients would show the reverse pattern. The

above is only one example of support for both the bivalent

and global models. There are other possible outcomes

indicating support for both models.















CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

First, analyses of the heart rate and skin conductance

responding during the psychophysiological orienting

procedure are presented. Next, primary analyses for

Experiment 1 are presented for heart rate, skin conductance,

ipsilateral corrugator EMG, bilateral zygomatic EMG, and

verbal report ratings separately for the shock and reward

conditions. Third, the analyses of the verbal report data

from Experiment 2 are presented.

Following the analyses of group data, data from

anterior and posterior subgroups and individual cases are

examined.

GrouD Data

Ps ych .'phE I : .. i 1 J L- r e en i nq

To review, the orienting, or physiological screening

procedure, consisted of an approximately 10 minutes period

where the subjects were instructed to sit quietly and listen

to tones. There were 8 block of three tones (24 tones

total). Two of every three tones were 1000 hz and one was

400 hz. Heart rate and skin conductances responding was

measured during the second before and six seconds following

presentation of each tone. One subject was removed from the

heart rate analyses due to unusually high and variable heart

88










rate. Additionally, one subject was removed from the skin

conductance analysis due to faulty electrode connections.

Heart rate

Average heart rate change from baseline was examined

using a Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with

group (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS) as the between subject

factor and tone (low, high) as the within subject factor.

The low tone was the novel tone. The main effect for group

[F(3,43) = .419, P = .740], tone [F(1,43) = 1.634, P =

.208], and the interaction between group and tone [F(3,43) =

.218, P = .884] were all nonsignificant. See Table C-l in

Appendix C.

A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was

employed to examine D1 using group as the between subject

factor (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS) and tone (high, low) and

block (1 to 8) as the within subject factors. Results

revealed a main effect for tone [F(1,43) = 8.63, P < .011

such that there was a greater D1 for the low tone (the novel

tone) compared to the high tone (the repeated tone). The

mean D1 for the low tone was -3.4 (sd=4.40) bpm change from

baseline whereas the mean D1 for the high tone was -2.5

(sd=3.82) bpm change from baseline. None of the other

effects were significant. See Table C-2, the full ANOVA

table, in Appendix C.










Skin conductance

The percentage of responses greater than .02 micro

sieman was analyzed using a repeated measures analysis of

variance with group (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS) as the

between subjects factor and tone (low and high) as the

within subject factor. One RHD subject was excluded due to

faulty electrode connections which resulted in corrupt data.

Results revealed that the main effect of group, tone, and

the group by tone interaction were not significant. The

mean percentage of responses and standard deviations for

each group were as follows: LHD, mean=8.07%, sd=25.73; LH

NCS, mean=25.52%, sd=36.16; RHD, mean=7.67%, sd=19.19; RH

NCS, mean=29.69%, sd=26.47. The full ANOVA table, Table C-

3, is presented in Appendix C.

The recorded range corrected skin conductance response

(SCR) was analyzed using a repeated measures analysis of

variance (ANOVA) with group (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS) as

the between-subject factor and tone (low, high) and block (1

to 8) as the within subject factors. As mentioned above,

one subject was excluded due to corrupt data. The main

effect for group [F(3,43) = 1.91, P =.1421], block [F(7,43)

= 1.20, P = .3017], and tone [F(1,43) = .21, P = .6495] were

not significant. The interactions between block and group

[F(21, 301) = .70, P = .8305], tone and group [F(3,43) =

.33, P = .80], and between block, tone, and group [F(21,301)

= .87, P = .6244] were also not significant. The full A::'.A









91

table, Table C-4 is presented in Appendix C. The means and

standard deviations for each group collapsed across tone and

block were: LHD mean=3.881, sd=13.690; LH NCS mean=14.691,

sd=27.809, RHD mean=3.895, sd=14.528; RH NCS mean=13.549,

sd=23.073.

To sum, during the psychophysiological screening

procedure, subjects had a greater heart rate D1 to the novel

tone. There were no differences between the tones in

overall heart rate, percentage of SCR responses, or amount

of skin conductance responding. Additionally, there were no

group differences found for either heart rate or skin

conductance.

Experiment 1

Experiment 1 consisted of two tasks (shock or reward).

During each condition, heart rate, skin conductance,

ipsilaceral corrugator EMG, and bilateral zygomatic EMG were

recorded during a three second baseline, tone onset, and a

six second anticipation period. Within each task, the tone

onset signaled either a stimulus or control trial. High

tones always signaled stimulus trials (i.e., shock and

reward) and low tones always signaled control trials. There

were 40 trials within each task which were divided into four

10-trial blocks. Within each block there were 5 stimulus

and 5 control trials. Subjects were administered the Self

Assessment Manikin at the end of each 10-trial block.











Shock task

As mentioned above, subjects received the shock in the

forearm ipsilateral to their lesions. Additionally, RH NCS

and LH NCS received the shock on their right and left arms

respectively. Subjects were asked to determine the level of

shock that was "uncomfortable, but not painful." The level

of shock chosen by the subjects was examined using a 1

factor ANOVA with group (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS) as the

between subject factor. There were no group differences in

the voltage of shock chosen [F(3,44) = 1.79, P = .1622].

The means and standard deviations for each group in volts

are as follows: LHD group (mean=68.75, sd=14.79), LH NCS

(mean=57.08, sd=12.70), RHD group (mean=64.17, sd=12.58), RH

NCS (mean=64.58, 9.40). The ANOVA table is presented below.


Table 4-1 ANOVA Table of Amount of Shock

SS DF MS F Sig
of F

Group 843.229 3 281.07 1.79 .1622

Residual 6893.750 44 156.67


Heart rate. A series of separate analyses were

conducted to examine several heart rate variables. These

included overall heart rate change from baseline, D1 (the

greatest deceleration within the first 3-seconds after tone

offset), Al (the greatest acceleration following D1 within

the 6-second period), and D2 (the greatest deceleration











following Al within the 6-second period). One subject was

excluded from the LH NC group due to unusually high and

variable heart rate. Figure C-1, C-2 and C-3 depict the

heart rate wave forms in half second intervals for the NCS,

RHD, and LHD subjects respectively.

Average heart raze change from baseline was examined

using repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) for

the shock condition with group as the between subjects

factor (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS) and condition (shock, no-

shock) as the within subject factor. The analyses

revealed no group differences [F(3,43) = 1.55, P = .214] as

well as no differences between the shock and no-shock

conditions [F(1,43) = .050, P = .824]. The interaction of

group and condition was also not significant [F(3,43) =

.927, P = .436]. The means for each group were as follows:

LHD mean=-.558, sd=.985; LH NCS mean=-.130, sd=.650; RHD

mean=.139, sd=1.556; RH NCS mean=-.121, sd=l.01. The

complete ANOVA table is depicted in Table C-5 of Appendix C.

Heart rate D1 was examined using repeated measures

analyses of variance ANOVAS) with group (LHD, LH NCS, RHD,

RH NCS) as the between subject factor. The two within

subject factors were block (1 to 4) and condition (shock and

no-shock). Analysis of D1 revealed that there was a

significant three way interaction between group, condition,

and block [F(9,43) = 2.09, P < 05]. Money of the other

interactions or main effects were significant. The full




Full Text
241
Table C-76 Mann-Whitney U, Wilcoxon Rank Sum W Tests of Arousal
Ratings during the No-Shock Condition of the Shock Task of
Experiment Two
Corrected for Ties
U
W
P-
Value
Z
Significance
LHD,
LH NCS
42.5
179.5
. 0887
-2.1239
. 0337
LHD,
RHD
71.5
149.5
. 9774
-.0602
. 9520
LHD,
RH NCS
50.5
171.5
.2189
-1.6441
. 1001
LH NCS,
RHD
40.5
118.5
. 0684
-2.2718
. 0231
LH NCS,
RH NCS
58.5
136.5
. 4428
-.8686
.3851
RHD,
RH NCS
48.0
174.0
. 1782
-1.8459
. 0649


7
i.e., fleeing from a dangerous snake. LeDoux proposed that
the amygdala receives exteroceptive sensory, interoceptive
sensory, and neural input. In addition, LeDoux (1984)
explains that sensory information from the peripheral
nervous system feeds back to the amygdala to intensify
amygdala excitation and increase the duration and intensity
of the experience of emotion.
LeDoux suggested that the amygdala performs the
functions that Cannon (1927) and Papez (1937) thought
belonged to the hypothalamus. Together, Cannon, Papez, and
LeDoux challenged the James-Lange Theory in hypothesizing
that emotional experience can be generalized in the brain
without the participation of the peripheral nervous system.
However, none of these theories discuss the differing roles
that the right and left cerebral hemispheres may play in
modulating emotional behavior.
Appraisal Theories
Other theorists have attempted to address Cannon's
criticism of autonomic feedback proposed by James and Lange.
Russell (1927/1961) stated that cognition as well as
physiological feedback compose the experience of emotion.
Within the past few decades, some theorists have viewed
emotion as a phenomenon developing from cognitive appraisal
of an event, situation, or condition. Arnold (1960)
described emotion as the nonrational judgement of an object
which follows perception and appraisal. Schacter and Singer


195
Table C-14 ANOVA Table of A1 during the Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
43.615
3
14.538
. 5841
. 6287
Subject(Group)
1070.271
43
24.890
Tone
7.662
1
7.662
.5711
.4539
Tone by Group
80.463
3
26.821
1.999
. 1283
Tone by
Subject(Group)
576.846
43
13.415
Block
5.838
3
1.946
. 2105
.8890
Block by Group
93.773
9
10.419
1.127
.3483
Block by
Subject(Group)
1192.472
129
9.244
Tone by Block
12.345
3
4.115
.4860
. 6926
Tone by Block
by Group
101.138
9
11.238
1.3273
. 2290
Tone by Block
by
Subject(Group)
1092.172
129
8.466


174
Table B-6 Neurological Information for the LHD Group
SEX
AGE
YEARS
OF
EDUC.
BRODMANN'S AREAS INVOLVED
IN CVA
LESION
LOCATION
MONTHS
SINCE
CVA
L2
M
72
14
22(posterior),
40(anterior), Insular
cortex
Posterior
155
L3
M
76
13
4, 1, 19, 21(posterior) ,
22(posterior), 37, 39,
40(posterior), 41, 42,
insular cortex, SPWM,
STWM, medial temporal
Posterior
178
L4
M
67
12
3,1,2, 22(posterior), 41,
42, 39, insular cortex,
STWM
Posterior
50
L5
M
60
14
3,1,2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11,
12, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,
32, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,
42, 45, 46, SCWM,
thalamus, striatum,
medial temporal, insular
cortex
Mixed
236
L6
M
68
15
21, 22(mixed), insular
cortex
Mixed
58
L7
M
50
15
22(posterior), 37, 40
(mixed)
Posterior
62
L8
M
72
12
22(posterior), 39,
40(mixed), STWM
Posterior
33
L9
M
60
14
6, 8, 24, corona radiata
Anterior
5
L10
M
68
8
17, 18, 19, 31, medial
temporal
Posterior
7
Lll
F
76
8
312, 6, 41, 42, 44, 45,
insular cortex, striatum,
internal capsule
Primarily
Anterior
*26
L12
M
70
12
3,1,2, 19, 22(posterior),
39, 40(mixed), insular
cortex, striatum, medial
temporal
Primarily
Posterior
51
L13
M
62
16
3,1,2, 6, striatum,
internal capsule, STWM,
insular cortex
Mixed
75


REFERENCES
Ahern, G. L., & Schwartz, G. E. (1979). Differential
lateralization for positive versus negative
emotions. Neuropsvcholoaia. 17, 693-698.
Ahern, G. L. & Schwartz, G. L. (1985). Differential
lateralization for positive and negative emotions
in the human brain: EEG spectral analysis.
Neuropsvcholoaia, 23, 745-756.
Anderson, S. W., Damasio, H., & Tranel, D. (1990).
Neuropsychological impairments associated with
lesions caused by tumor or stroke. A.rchives of
Neurology, 47, 397-405.
Annett, M. (1970). A classification of hand preference by
association analysis. British Journal of Psychology,
61, 303-321.
Arnold, M. (1960). Emotions and personality, (Vols 1,2). New
York: Columbia University Press.
Babinski, J. (1914). Contribution a l'etude des troubles
mentaux dans 1'hemisplegie organique cerbrale
(anosognosie). Revue Neurologiaue, 27, 845-848.
Bankart, C. P., & Elliot, R. (1974). Heart rate and skin
conductance in anticipation of shocks with varying
probability of occurence. Psychophysiology, 11, 160-
174 .
Blonder, L. X., Bowers, D., Heilman, K. M. (1991). The role
of the right hemisphere on emotional communication.
Brain, 114. 1115-1127.
Blonder, L. X., Burns, A., Bowers, D., Moore, R., Heilman,
K. M. (1992). Right hemisphere expressivity during
natural conversation. Journal of Clinical &
Experimental Neuropsychology. 13, 85.
Borod, J. Emotional Expression and Brain Mechanisms:
Lateralization of Behavior in Brain-Damaged and
Normal Adults. Submitted for publication).
246


81
to unpleasant), arousal (aroused to calm), and control
(dominance to submission). There are both computer and
paper and pencil versions of SAM. In this study, a paper
and pencil version of SAM in which each dimension was
presented as a series of five cartoon characters was be
used. For the valence dimension, SAM's facial expression
gradually changes from a smile to a frown. Arousal is
denoted by increased activity in the abdomen to no activity
and wide eyes to closed eyes. Control is represented from a
very large character who gradually shrinks in size to a very
small character.
During both the anticipatory shock and the anticipatory
reward tasks, subjects were asked to rate how they felt
using the SAM. This was done after each block of 10 trials,
so that two ratings were obtained after each of the
following conditions: shock anticipation, anticipation of
no shock, reward anticipation, anticipation of no reward.
Data Reduction
Heart rate
First raw data was examined. Based on the subjects
data as a whole, missing beats and double beats were
estimated and corrected. Next, a computer program was used
to more thoroughly determine missed beats and double beats.
Double beats were removed from the data set. The computer
used the surrounding beats to estimate the missing beats.
Average half second beats/minute were obtained for each


128
shock of the same or greater intensity than the previous
shocks. Additionally, subjects were instructed that at the
end of the reward trial they would receive between 5 and 8
dollars or lottery tickets, which ever they chose. Also,
they were informed that at the end of both 5 minute control
trials, nothing would happen.
Shock condition
Positive and negative affect schedule. Repeated
measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to explore
positive affect factor (PA) and negative affect factor (NA)
for both the shock and reward conditions. The between
subject factor was group (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS) and the
within subject factor was condition (shock, control). There
were no significant main effects or interaction for PA.
However, a significant main effect for condition was
revealed for NA [F(l,44) = 9.52, P < .01]. Specifically,
subjects reported higher intensities of negative emotions
during the shock (mean=12.42) compared to the shock-control
trial (mean=11.42). The main effect of group or interaction
between group and condition was not significant. These
two ANOVA tables, Table C-73 and C-74, are presented in
Appendix C.
Self-assessment manikin. Valence, arousal, and
dominance ratings were analyzed using Wilcoxon and Kruskal-
Wallis Tests. The shock and reward trials significantly
differed for valence [Z = -3.84, P < .001], arousal [Z = -


160
distinguish the reward from the reward-control trials, the
predictions about group differences based on the global and
bivalent models could not be examined.
Yet, when the one LHD subject with high SCRs is
removed, the LHD group, as well as the RHD group, appears to
be deficient in emotional responding during the shock
condition. This finding does not provide support for either
the global or the bivalent view of emotional responding.
The verbal report measures showed clear differences in
the ratings of subjects during the stimulus compared to the
control trials. For both the shock and reward conditions,
however, there were no group differences in ratings of
emotion. As a consequence, the verbal report data does not
support either the global or bivalent models of emotion.
In conclusion, there is a dissociation in RHD patients
and most of the LHD subjects between verbal report of
emotion and autonomic responding. The reason for this
dissociation is unclear. It may be that subjects were able
to perceive the emotional situations accurately, but have a
deficit in autonomic responding. Another explanation is
that the brain damaged subjects were unable to accurately
perceive the emotional content of the anticipation trials
accurately, and thus, did not exhibit the expected SCR
responses. Lastly, a combination of both possibilities may
have contributed to the dissociation between verbal report
and autonomic responding.


242
Table C-77 ANOVA Table of Positive Affect during the Reward Task
of Experiment Two
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
225.19068
3
75.06356
.49119
. 6902
Subject(Group)
6571.23485
43
152.81942
Trial
230.83636
1
230.83636
7.5209
. 0089
Trial by Group
141.83672
3
47.27891
1.5404
.2178
Trial by
Subject(Group)
1319.78030
43
30.69257
Table C-78 ANOVA Table of Negative Affect during the Reward Task
of Experiment Two
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
46.02345
3
15.34115
.46770
. 7063
Subject(Group)
1410.46591
43
32.80153
Trial
. 12803
1
. 12803
.19847
. 6582
Trial by Group
5.09115
3
1.69705
2.6307
. 0621
Trial by
Subject(Group)
27.73864
43
. 64508


86
and anticipatory shock situations will not be equal in
intensity even for the NHD group. Specifically, intensity
of anxiety/negative affect in anticipation of electric shock
will probably be greater than the intensity of joy/positive
affect in anticipation of a dollar or a lottery ticket.
However, due to financial constraints, it is not possible to
raise the financial value of the reward. Yet, by giving
each subject the choice between a dollar and a lottery
ticket, hopefully the intensity of the reward will be
maximized as each subject chooses the reward that is most
salient to him or her. In considering this problem, it may
be that autonomic, facial, and/or verbal responding are not
as pronounced as expected during the reward tasks. Yet, to
assume that differences in intensity of emotion contributed
to the lowered responsivity in the measured response
systems, attenuated responding would need to be evidenced in
all three subject groups.
Secondly, differences in baseline autonomic responding
may exist between the RHD patients, LHD patients, and normal
controls. This would make it difficult to separate deficits
in baseline autonomic responding, per se, from affective
autonomic responding. Consequently, baseline autonomic
responding will be examined in the psychophysiological
screening procedure.
Thirdly, it may be that the results of this study
provide partial support for both the global and bivalent


121
one another [T(l,21) = .721, P = .4790] There were no
significant differences between any of the groups for the
reward minus reward-control condition. Both tables of t-
tests, Table C-63, and C-64, are presented in Appendix C.
To sum, subjects had a greater percentage of responses
in anticipation of the shock compared to anticipation of
reward. Additionally, both RHD and LHD patients had fewer
responses than RH NCS, but not the LH NCS. Also,
examination of magnitude of SCR revealed that subjects had
greater magnitude of responding during the first and last
trial block compared to the middle trial blocks.
Additionally, both the LHD and RHD patients had
significantly smaller SCRs compared to their respective
controls during the shock task, whereas no group differences
were revealed during the reward task.
Facial electromyography. Analyses were also performed
to directly compared the shock and reward tasks. To do this
new variables were created by subtracting the control trials
from their respected stimulus trials for CEMG, ZGL, and ZGR.
Separate repeated measures analyses of variance using group
as the between subjects factor and task (shock minus no
shock and reward minus no-reward) as the within subject
variable. The analyses revealed no significant effects for
any of the three variables. The ANOVA tables, Tables C-65,
C-66, and C-67, are report i in Appendix C. The means for


125
with the covariate, the main effect for group became
nonsignificant [F(l,42) =2.04, P = .123]. The condition by
group interaction, however, remained significant [F(3,43) =
6.47, P c.Ol]. The full ANCOVA table, Table C-69, is
presented in Appendix C.
Recoded range corrected SCR was also examined using
medication as a covariate. In this analysis, group was the
between subjects factor and block (1 to 4) and condition
(shock and no-shock) were the within subject factors.
Similar to the above analysis, using the covariate, the main
effect of group lost it's significance [F(3,42) = 1.57, P =
.212. Yet, again the condition by group interaction
remained significant [F(3,43) =6.60, P < .01]. This ANCOVA
table, Table C-70, is also presented in Appendix C.
In sum, when medications that affect the autonomic
nervous system (ANS) are used as a covariate, the group by
condition interactions for both percentage of SCR responses
and magnitude of SCR remains significant. As mentioned
above, further exploration of this interaction revealed that
the RHD and LHD groups had significantly fewer SCRs above
.02 micro sieman than the RH NCS during the shock trials.
Additionally, when the range corrected SCR values were
examined, the RHD group had significantly smaller magnitude
of responses than both controls groups, whereas the LHD
group did not differ from any other groups.


52
right temporal and parietal regions (e.g., Bowers et al.,
1987), whereas studies of emotional mood have implicated the
frontal lobes (e.g., Davidson, 1984).
Heller (1990) has interpreted the literature in terms
of type of emotional processing, such that "cold" or
nonexperienced emotional processing is modulated by the
right posterior region. In addition, she posited that
"warm" or experienced positive emotion is processed
predominantly by the left hemisphere, whereas "warm or
experienced negative emotion is processed predominantly by
the right hemisphere. According to Heller, the majority of
evidence in support of the right hemisphere model of emotion
comes from studies which have investigated cognitive
processing of information in brain damaged and normal
subjects, whereas most evidence in support of the bivalent
models of emotion has been derived from lateralization of
mood states. Heller suggested that there is no reason to
assume that because a hemisphere is associated with a
particular mood state, that it must be specific for
cognitive representations of that emotion.
In order to distinguish among the ability of the global
and bivalent models to explain emotional experience, it is
necessary to evoke emotion with both positive/approach and
negative/withdrawal emotions. Because RHD patients have
difficulty interpreting emotional stimuli, including faces
and prosody (e.g., Bowers et al., 1987), it is difficult to


CHAPTER 1
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
Patients with unilateral brain damage have been used to
investigate hemispheric contribution to emotional
perception, voluntary expression, and to a lesser extent
"experience" as indirectly assessed through physiologic
arousal, overt behavior, and verbal report. Although some
studies have suggested that differences in post-stroke mood
occur following right hemisphere damage (RHD) and left
hemisphere damage (LHD), few studies have assessed brief
emotional experience while measuring psychophysiological and
behavioral indices of emotion in these patients. Moreover,
when emotional experience has been studied using
physiological indices of emotion, patients needed to decode
emotional stimuli, which may be problematic for some RHD
patients. Additionally, no study to date has employed
facial EMG when examining emotional experience in
unilaterally damaged patients. In the current project,
stroke patients with left or right hemisphere lesions
participated in two experiments designed to examine specific
deficits in pleasant and unpleasant emotional experience as
a function of unilateral brain damage. Both physiological
1


200
Table C-25 ANOVA Table of Recoded Range Corrected SCR during the
Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
7403.641
3
2467.880
2.989
. 0414
Subject(Group)
35502.724
43
825.645
Block
3987.684
3
1329.228
14.059
. 0001
Block by Group
1123.810
9
124.868
1.321
.2323
Block by
Subject(Group)
12196.852
129
94.549
Tone
4191.208
1
4191.208
23.357
.0001
Tone by Group
3551.953
3
1183.984
6.5980
. 0009
Tone by
Subject(Group)
7716.130
43
179.445
Block by Tone
934.601
3
311.534
3.829
. 0115
Block by Tone
by Group
355.217
9
39.469
.485
. 8825
Block by Tone
by
Subject(Group)
10495.213
129
81.358


208
Table C-39 Kruskal-Wallis Tests of SAM Ratings during Shock Task
Corrected for Ties
Chi-
Square
Significance
Chi-
Square
Significance
Valence
(Shock)
1.993
. 5734
2.0433
. 5635
Valence
(Control)
. 0410
. 9978
. 0612
. 9960
Arousal
(Shock)
1.2324
. 7453
1.2654
.7374
Arousal
(Control)
1.2959
. 7301
1.8491
.6043
Dominance
(Shock)
1.8565
.6027
2.0384
. 5645
Dominance
(Control)
.2111
. 9758
.3150
. 9572


Table B-9 Results of Neuropsychological Testing for RH NC Group
ID
WAIS-R
INFO
WAIS-R
SIM
DIGIT
SPAN
WMS-R
Orient
WMS-R LOG
MEM I & II
WMS-R VIS
REPRO I & II
NEGLECT
FACIAL
RECOGN
APHASIA
SCORE
RC1
SS = 9
SS = 6
6/4
14
80/78
98/98
No
WNL
10/98
RC2
SS = 15
SS = 16
8/7
14
94/97
99/99
No
WNL
10/99.8
RC3
SS = 11
SS = 9
5/5
14
12/26
99/99
No
WNL
9.9/97.6
RC4
SS = 15
SS = 11
7/5
14
76/42
98/98
No
WNL
10/99.6
RC5
SS = 8
SS = 8
6/3
14
72/81
89/93
No
WNL
9.6/99.2
RC6
SS = 13
SS = 8
8/7
14
68/72
54/66
No
WNL
10/98.6
RC7
SS = 10
SS = 5
8/5
14
27/48
9/7
No
MODERATE
9.35/95.7
RC8
SS = 12
SS = 8
7/5
14
90/98
98/96
No
WNL
10/98.4
RC9
SS = 15
SS = 12
7/7
14
83/97
77/77
No
WNL
10/99.6
RC10
SS = 6
SS = 7
7/5
13
76/76
33/13
No
WNL
9.7/96.2
RC11
SS = 6
SS = 8
6/4
14
49/51
68/88
No
WNL
9.75/98.3
RC12
SS = 12
SS = 8
7/5
14
29/23
32/20
No
WNL
9.85/99.1


76
acquisition modules, a DT2805 Multifunction Board, and a
Zenith Data Systems AT clone computer.
Heartbeat was monitored by a Colbourn Instruments EKG
Coupler recorded from standard lead II. Colbourn
Instruments Bipolar comparator was used to detect the R-peak
of the EKG. Sampling occurred at 200 Hz. The output of the
Schmitt trigger was sampled at the digital input port of a
DT2805 Multifunction Board installed in a Zenith Data
Systems AT clone computer.
Skin conductance was measured by attaching 4-mm Ag/AgCl
electrodes to the thenar and hypothenar eminences of the
palm ipsilateral to the lesion. To control for possible
hand effects NHD subjects were divided into left hemisphere
normal control (LH NC) and right hemisphere normal control
(RH NC) groups. The LH NC group had electrodes placed on
their left hand and the RH NCs had electrodes placed on
their right hand. One LHD subject had skin conductance
measured on his right hand because his left arm had been
amputated. Since recent evidence (Tranel & Damasio, 1994)
suggests that brain damage subjects do not display
differential skin conductance between their right and left
hands, it was decided to include this subject in the SCR
analyses. A 0.05 m NaCl electrolyte (Johnson & Johnson K Y
Jelly) was used. Colbourn Instruments Skin Conductance
module S71-22 was used to condition the SC signal. This is
a constant voltage system which passes 0.5v across the palm


149
studies have found that corrugator EMG is related to
unpleasant emotional experience and zygomatic EMG is related
to pleasant emotional experience (i.e., Greenwald, et al.,
1989) .
Ipsilateral corrugator and bilateral zygomatic EMG did
not differentiate the shock from control trials. There are
at least two possible factors that may have contributed to
the lack of the expected finding: the age of the subject
and the gender.
A recent study examining the relationship between age
in the general population on surface EMG of pericranial
muscles provides partial support for the decrease in EMG
with age. Jensen and Fuglsang-Fredriksen (1994) revealed
that EMG activity was significantly decreased in older
individuals during maximal voluntary contraction. These
authors suggest that the decrease in amplitude is related to
decrease in number of muscle fibers along with an increase
in age-related type II atrophy. However, in this study
when subjects were exposed to pain (blood being drawn) and
a cold-pressor test the increase in muscle activity was not
affected by age. This study differs from the present in
that different facial muscles were measured and that they
were measured under voluntary contraction and exposure to
pain. Moreover, the subjects in this study were divided
into four age groups. The oldest group ranged from 55-64
years of age. In the present study, the average age is in


114
reward and control trials. See Table C-51 in Appendix C for
details.
In sum, overall subjects reported greater pleasure,
arousal, and dominance during the reward compared to the
control trials. Additionally, none of the groups differed
in their ratings during the reward or control trials.
Shock versus reward
In order to directly compare the change in emotional
experience between the two stimulus and control conditions,
the no-shock and no-reward control conditions were
subtracted from their respective stimulus conditions. Thus,
a new variable was created for each variable by subtracting
the value during the shock condition from the value during
the no-shock condition. Similar variables were created by
subtracting the no-reward condition from the reward
condition. These new variables were created in order to
directly compare the change in each dependent variable
between the stimulus and control condition in the shock task
with the change between the stimulus and control condition
in the reward task.
Heart rate. As mentioned above, overall heart rate
along with Dl, A1, and D2 were examined separately. Also,
as in the heart rate analyses reported above, one subject
was excluded from the LH NC group due to unusually high and
variable heart rate change scores.


164
distinguished using this procedure. Several reasons could
account for this problem. As mentioned above, the reward
situation is not as emotionally arousing as the shock
condition. Since SCR is found to be highly correlated with
arousal rating (Greenwald, Cook, and Lang, 1989), the lack
of SCR in the reward condition may be related to the lack of
arousal experienced by the subjects in this condition.
Additionally, facial EMG which have been correlated with
ratings of valence, does not appear to be a useful measure
in this population.
Third, since subjects were not asked to respond in any
way during the anticipatory period, it is unclear whether
subjects were accurately interpreting the emotional context
of the anticipation period on a trial by trial basis.
Although subjects demonstrated competence at distinguishing
the high and low pairs of tones from one another before the
onset of the experiment, some subjects may have difficulty
distinguishing certain tones or remembering the significance
of the tones during the experimental procedure. As a
consequence, the lack of SCR findings in the RHD group and
most of the subjects in the LHD group could possibly be
reflective of problems accurately interpreting the
significance of the anticipatory period.
Lastly, attempts were made to map each subject's scans
onto Damasio's templates. However, this study was not
designed to be able to carefully determine the


101
The main effect for group was explored using
independent sample t-tests with a Bonferroni correction.
Since the difference between the LH NCS and the RH NCS was
not significant [T(l,22) = -1.247, P = .2254], these group
were combined. Using the Bonferroni correction of P < .017,
as the significance level, the RHD group displayed
significantly smaller SCRs compared to the CONS [T(l,33) =
2.60, P < .017], but not the LHD group. The means and
standard deviations are as follows: RHD group (mean=5.08,
sd=8.93), LHD group (mean=8.12, sd=14.31), CONS (mean=14.30,
sd=11.14). A table of the t-tests, Table C-26, is presented
in Appendix C.
The main effect of tone revealed that the high tone was
associated with a significantly higher response (mean=13.98)
than the low tone (mean=7.16).
The main effect of block was explored using paired t-
tests with a Bonferroni correction based on six comparisons,
P < .008. The results revealed that the SCR was greater
during block 1 (mean=16.13, sd=17.39) compared to block 2
(mean=9.84, 13.96) [T(1,46) = 4.24, P < .001], block 3
(mean=8.08, sd=13.09) [T(l,46) = 4.57, P < .0001], and block
4 (mean=8.22, sd= 15.20) [T(l,46) = 4.30, P < .0001. Blocks
2 and 3, 2 and 4, and 3 and 4 were not significantly
different from one another. Table C-27 in Appendix C
contains the values from the t-tests.


10
the cortical integration of facial expression feedback that
generates subjective experience of emotion.
Proponents of the Differential Emotion Theory have
conceptualized a certain number of fundamental emotion
categories which are comprised of specific phenomenological
characteristics, expressive responses, and physiological
patterns. Darwin (1872) was one of the first to discuss his
observations of the expression of discrete emotions. He
described many emotions which he viewed as having
corresponding facial expressions which are universally
displayed and recognized by humans cross culturally.
According to Izard (1977) there are 10 fundamental emotions
such as happiness, sadness, anger, fear, and disgust.
The concept of discrete emotions developed mostly from
direct observation and study of facial expressions.
Fridlund, Ekman, and Oster (1987) reviewed the literature on
facial expressions including phylogenetic, cross-cultural,
and developmental research. They determined that there is
much support for discrete emotions. Their conclusions,
based on the literature, are as follows: (1) phylogenetic
studies have shown that many nonhuman primates show a
variety of differentiated facial patterns and similar facial
patterns have been observed among human and nonhuman
primates; (2) cross-cultural studies have revealed that
members of different cultures display the same facial
expressions and use analogous emotion labels when


213
Table C-42 ANOVA Table of A1 during the Reward Task
SS
DF
MS
F
P
Group
46.60895
3
15.5363
2
. 66432
. 5786
Subject(Group)
1005.63880
43
23.3869
5
Tone
10.35746
1
10.3574
6
.79977
.3761
Tone by Group
23.66528
3
7.88843
.60912
. 6127
Tone by
Subject(Group)
556.87177
43
12.9505
1
Block
16.50844
3
5.50281
. 63107
. 5962
Block by Group
25.22869
9
2.80319
.32148
. 9667
Block by
Subject(Group)
1124.84796
129
8.71975
Tone by Block
4.64534
3
1.54845
.19863
.8972
Tone by Block
by Group
47.42106
9
5.26901
.67590
.7295
Tone by Block
by
Subject(Group)
1005.62893
129
7.79557


38
reason, it is crucial to include both pleasant and
unpleasant scenes or situations when studying
psychophysiological responses in neuropsychological
investigations of emotion. Such was employed in this study.
Before discussing the proposed study more fully, a
brief overview of relevant literature on emotional
psychophysiology will be presented. This is being done
since the current study will include several
psychophysiological indices (i.e., skin conductance, heart
rate, facial electromyography) for assessing emotional
responsivity in patients with right or left hemisphere
lesions.
Emotional Psychophysiology
Autonomic Responding
At the psychophysiological level, the relationship
between autonomic activity and emotion has been recognized
for centuries. Recent technological advances have made the
prospect of online physiological measurement more feasible.
Theorists have attempted to understand the factors which
influence skin conductance and heart rate. Sokolov (1963)
described two types of responses which occur during
conditioning: orienting and defensive reactions. He
purported that the purpose of the orienting response (OR) is
to increase sensitivity to incoming stimuli and that it
includes both a transient increase in skin conductance. The
defensive response (DR), on the other hand, is evoked in


181
Table B-12 Performance of RHD on Florida Affect Battery (percent
correct)
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8a
8b
9
R1
75
65
85
90
50
50
85
60
50/
13
40
R2
50
65
80
80
75
88
80
75
75/
31
65
R3
85
65
55
90
60
75
65
40
94/
25
20
R4
90
80
90
100
80
75
95
75
100
/ 63
80
R6
80
90
75
95
65
100
95
90
75/
69
80
R7
85
70
75
75
50
44
90
25
50/
44
55
R8
75
80
65
80
60
100
100
75
81/
50
60
R9
55
60
60
75
55
50
70
70
88/
13
45
Rll
95
65
100
95
80
88
95
85
100
/44
85
R12
90
80
90
90
75
100
95
75
75/
69
90
R13
75
50
75
95
70
69
70
55
100
/ 60
70
R14
100
85
90
100
85
100
85
100
81/
75
100


108
the experimenter brought the dollars or tickets into the
chamber and placed them on the table in front of the
subject. The subjects were instructed that at the end of
the task, they could take their money or tickets from the
table.
Heart rate. Overall heart rate was explored by
calculating average heart rate change from baseline and
employing a repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVA)
with group as the between subjects factor (LHD, LH NCS, RHD,
RH NCS) and condition (reward, no-reward) as the within
subject factor. Additionally, heart rate Dl, A1, and D2
were examined also using repeated measures ANOVAs. In these
analyses group was the between subject factor and block (1
to 4) and condition (reward and no-reward) were the within
subject factors. One subject from the LH NC group was
excluded for having unusually high and variable heart rate.
Figures C-4, C-5, and C-6, in Appendix C, depict the heart
rate change in beats per minute over half second intervals
for the NCS, RHD, and LHD groups respectively.
Results of the ANOVA for overall heart rate revealed no
significant main effects for groups [F(3,43) = .762, P =
.522] or condition [F(l,43) = .961, P = .332]. The
interaction was also not significant [F(3,43) = .425, P =
.736]. The ANOVA table, Table C-40, is presented in
Appendix C. The mean change from baseline in beats per
minutes for each group is as follows: LHD=-.675, sd=1.82; LH


221
Table C-51 Kruskal-Wallis Tests of SAM Ratings during Reward Task
Corrected for Ties
Chi-
Square
Significance
Chi-
Square
Significance
Valence
(Reward)
1.4598
. 6916
2.2787
. 5166
Valence
(Control)
.4543
. 9288
.4623
. 9271
Arousal
(Reward)
5.9702
. 1131
6.3427
. 0961
Arousal
(Control)
1.1635
. 7618
1.2536
. 7402
Dominance
(Reward)
1.0096
. 7989
1.3885
.7082
Dominance
(Control)
. 8140
. 8461
1.0466
. 7900


30
supports the global rather than the bivalent model (Blonder,
et al., 1991; Borod et al. 1985, 1988; Buck & Duffy, 1980).
Emotional arousal/activation
Hemispheric activation during emotional responding in
normal subjects have been investigated using measures such
as electroencephalography (EEG) and lateral eye movements
(LEM). Using EEG, it has been found that in the frontal
zones, positive emotions produced more left than right
hemisphere EEG activation, while negative emotions produced
more right than left EEG activation (Ahern & Schwartz, 1985;
Tucker, Stensiie, Roth, & Shearer, 1981; Davidson et al.,
1979; Davidson, et al., 1990) In addition, Ahern and
Schwartz (1985) found that the right parietal zone was
related to emotional intensity, whereas Bennett, Davidson
and Saron (1980) as well as Davidson and colleagues (1990)
found no differences in parietal activation related to
emotion.
Lateral eye movements (LEM) have also been used as a
measure of hemispheric activation. LEM towards the right
have been interpreted as reflecting left hemisphere
activation, while LEM to the left is suggestive of right
hemisphere activation. Initial findings revealed more LEMs
to the left during emotional experience (Davidson &
Schwartz, 1976; Schwartz, Davidson, & Maer, 1975; Tucker,
Roth, Arneson, & Buckingham, 1977). Ahern and Schwartz
(1979) investigated lateral eye movement in response to


253
Heilman, K. M., Watson, R. T., & Bowers, D. (1983).
Affective disorders associated with hemispheric
disease. In:K. M. Heilman (Ed.), Neuropsychology
of human emotion. New York: Guilford Press.
Heilman, K. M., Watson, R. T., & Valenstein, E. (1993).
Neglect and related disorders. In K. Heilman & E.
Valenstein (Eds.). Clinical Neuropsychology (3rd Ed).
New York: Oxford Press
Heller, W. (1990). The Neuropsychology of emotion:
Developmental patterns and implications for
psychopathology. In Psychological and Biological
Approaches to Emotion. N. L. Stein, B. Leventhal,
& T. Trebasso (Eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum:
Hillsdale, N.Y.
Heller, W. & Levy. J. (1981). Perception and expression of
emotion in right handers and left handers.
Neuropsvchologia. 19, 263-272.
Hodes, R. L., Cook, E. W., & Lang, P. J. (1985). Individual
differences in autonomic response: Conditioned
association or conditioned fear? Psychophysiology. 22.
545-560.
Hodges, W. F. & Spielberger, C. D. (1966). The effects of
threat of shock on heart rate for subjects who differ
in manifest anxiety and fear of shock.
Psychophysiology. 2, 287-294.
House, A., Dennis, M., Warlow, C., Hawton, K., & Molyneux,
A. (1990). Mood disorders after stroke and their
relation to lesion location. Brain. 113. 1113-1129.
Izard, C. E. (1977). Human emotions. New York: Plenum Press.
Izard, C.E. (1978). The Maximally Discriminative Facial
Movement Coding System (MAX). Newark: Instructional
Resources Center, University of Delaware.
James, W. (1884). What is emotion? Mind. 9_, 188-205.
Reprinted in K. Dunlap, Psychology Classics. Vol.
1: The emotions. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins
Company, 1922.
Jensen, R. & Fuglsang-Frederiksen, A. (1994). Qualtitative
surface EMG of pericranial muscles. Relation to age
and sex in a general population.
Electroencephalography ans Clincial Neurophysiology.
93, 175-183.


245
Table C-82 Kruskal-Wallis Tests of SAM Ratings comparing Shock and
Reward Tasks of Experiment Two
Corrected for Ties
Chi-
Square
Significance
Chi-
Square
Significance
Valence
(Shock-
Control)
. 5716
. 9029
. 64459
. 8862
Valence
(Reward-
Control )
. 5996
. 8965
.8825
. 8296
Arousal
(Shock-
Control )
4.3484
.2262
4.9789
. 1733
Arousal
(Reward-
Control )
3.9173
.2705
5.2062
. 1573
Dominance
(Shock-
Control )
2.5942
.4585
4.4929
.2129
Dominance
(Reward-
Control )
.6716
. 8799
1.9981
. 5728


63
1. During shock and prize anticipation, LHD subjects will
display similar or accentuated HR response patterns
compared to normal controls, whereas RHD subjects will
display decreased HR responding relative to normal
controls. HR responding will be greater for the LHD
and NHD groups during shock and prize trials compared
to control trials. HR responding for the RHD group-
will not differ between shock, prize and no shock/no
reward control trials.
2. During both shock and prize anticipation, LHD patients
will display greater SCR than the normal controls. For
the RHD patients, SCR will be smaller than that of the
LHD and NHD patients. SCR will be greater during shock
and prize trials than control trials for the LHD and
NHD groups, whereas the difference in SCR for the RHD
group between shock, prize, no shock/no reward control
trials will be smaller.
3. During shock anticipation, corrugator EMG reactivity
will be similar or greater for LHD compared to the NHD
patients, whereas RHD patients will show smaller
corrugator EMG compared to NHD patients. For LHD and
NHD patients corrugator EMG will be greater for shock
trials than no shock trials. However, differences in
corrugator EMG will be smaller between shock and no
shock control trials in RHD patients.


Heart Rate (Beats per Minute)
Figure o-3 Heart Hate Change Scores in LHD Ss during Shock Task
Nu Shock
ShocK
190


155
control. These findings refute the predictions made about
the emotional content of Experiment 2. Perhaps, since the
subjects had already obtained a significant amount of
dollars or lottery tickets (20 dollars or ticket) in
Experiment 1, they were not as emotionally excited during
Experiment 2.
Another possible explanation could be related to the
conservative nonparametric statistics used for analyses.
The Wilcoxon Test is a conservative test when used with only
one rating, due to the large number of ties in subject
ratings.
Group Differences in Emotional Responding
As presented above, for the most part, heart rate and
facial EMG did not differentiate the shock and reward trials
from their respective controls. The only significant group
difference revealed in the heart rate analyses was that
during the shock condition that LHD group had significantly
greater decelerations during the control trials for block 2
of D2. These findings are of trivial theoretical
importance. The discussion below will focus on the SCR and
verbal report ratings.
During the shock condition, RHD subjects had smaller
SCR than their respective controls. This replicates
previous findings (Meadows & Kaplan, 1994; Zoccolotti et
al., 1982; Heilman, et al., 1978). This finding is
supportive of both the global and bivalent theory of


55
It is important to consider the constraints that are
placed on evaluating emotional experience in patients with
focal lesions. For example, left hemisphere damaged
patients often have difficulty with language, which may
affect their verbal report data. To minimize this problem
in the present study, severely aphasic patients would not be
used and only verbal report measures with simple language
were used. Also, right hemisphere damaged patients often
have difficulties with visual attention, neglect, and
vigilance. Consequently, adequate attention to the task at
hand must be insured among RHD patients.
To study emotional experience, it is important to
measure all three response systems; verbal report, overt
behaviors, and physiological indices. One way to better
understand the neuropsychology of emotional experience is to
use paradigms which are highly sensitive to emotional
responding. The present study focused on an anticipation
paradigm (Reiman et al., 1989) designed to investigate
verbal report, heart rate, skin conductance, and facial
responses associated with emotion. In order to examine the
psychophysiology of emotional experience, an "in vivo"
situation was used. Using anticipation of "in vivo"
aversive and pleasant stimuli, it was easier for patients to
interpret the emotional meaning of the situations because
they did not have to analyze the affective quality of
various perceptual stimuli.


79
Anticipatory shock task
Before beginning the anticipatory anxiety task, each
subject choose the intensity of shock. This was done by
increasing voltage from 0 volts in five volt increments.
Half second shocks were administered after each increase in
voltage until the subject found the shock intensity
"uncomfortable but not painful."
Before the onset of the session, subjects were told
which of two tones corresponded to shock trials and which
corresponded to control trials. This two-stimulus paradigm
is similar to that used by Vrana, et al. (1989) in which a
warning signal is followed six seconds later by an electric
shock. The subjects were instructed that during the shock
trials at tone offset (after hearing the high tone), there
will be a 6 second interstimulus interval which will be
followed by a shock. In addition, the subjects were told
that when they heard the low tone, it signaled that in six
seconds, nothing would happen.
Anticipatory reward task
At the beginning of the sessions, subjects were told
which tone would indicate that they would receive a dollar
(or lottery ticket) and which tone was not associated with
reward. The higher tone always designated reward. The
designated tone for the reward trials was followed by a six-
second interval after which a message appeared on the
computer screen. The message read "You have won -- dollars"


151
Additionally, during the shock task of Experiment 2
subjects reported significantly more negative affect during
the shock compared to control trials, along with greater
unpleasantness, arousal, and loss of control. As in
Experiment 1, these rating support the predictions regarding
this task. There were no differences in the positive affect
ratings. These findings reflects subjects ability to
accurately perceive the emotional context during the
anticipatory period.
Reward Condition
Heart rate
Heart rate was predicted to produce a triphasic curve,
including an initial deceleration, followed by an
acceleration, and then a second deceleration during the
reward compared to the no-reward trials. No significant
differences, however, were found when the heart rate
variables were examined during the reward condition.
As mentioned above, heart rate varies as a function of
the response-set given to the subjects. This finding has
been clearly demonstrated in anticipation of high interest
slides (nude female) in a sample of undergraduate males.
Simons, Ohman and Lang's (1979) subjects were divided into
two groups. Each group was presented with two tones. One
tone signaled the presentation of high interest slides,
whereas the other tone signaled presentation of low interest
slides. One group was instructed to press a switch, as


153
disappointed relative to the reward trials. Verbal report
ratings illustrated that subjects felt less pleasant and
less in control during the no-reward compared to the reward
trials.
A second explanation for the lack of increased SCRs
during the reward compared to the no-reward trials is
related to the arousal level of the subjects. As mentioned
in the literature review, SCR is highly correlated with
arousal ratings (Greenwald, Cook, & Lang, 1989) Also, as
mentioned in the design issues section of the literature
review, one of the concerns about the reward task was that
it was not as arousing as the shock task. Comparison of
arousal ratings between the shock and reward conditions
reveal that, in fact, subjects rated the shock condition as
more arousing than the reward condition. As a consequence,
it is possible that lack of increased SCRs during the reward
compared to the reward-control trials is the result of the
lack of arousal during the reward condition.
Moreover, Simons, Ohman, and Lang (1979) found that
subjects' SCR did not differ during anticipation of high
interest and low interest when subjects were not asked to
respond motorically. In this experiment subjects are not
asked to respond in any way following the anticipatory
period. Thus, the lack of SCRs during the reward compared
to the no-reward trials may be related to the lack of a
motoric response set.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I want to thank my Chairperson, Dr. Dawn Bowers,
for teaching me the skills needed to become a competent
researcher and writer. I also want to thank Dr. Russell
Bauer for explaining psychophysiological methodology to me
in a way that I could easily understand. I am also grateful
to Dr. Heilman for being available to answer my questions
about neurology, help me to choose patients, and map out the
CT/MRI scans. I would like to thank my other committee
members, Drs. Bradley, Rao, and Fennell for contributing
their time and expertise to this project.
Additionally, I would like to thank the many people who
provided technical support for this project. Samel Celebi
wrote all the computer porgrams and set up the interface
between hardware and software. Barbara Haas taught me
appropriate electrode placement and forced me to use an
impedence meter. I am also grateful to those individuals at
the West Roxbury VAMC who helped me to finish this project.
Bill Milberg provided me with the time and computer
facilities needed to conduct data reduction and analyses.
Patrick Kilduff patiently helped me to reduce the tremendous
amount of data I had collected. Also, Gina McGlinchy
11


251
Ellsworth, P. C. Sc Smith, C. E. (1988) Shades of joy:
Appraisals differntiating among positive emotions.
Emotions and Cognition. 2, 301-331.
Erlichman, H., & Weinberger, A. (1978). Lateral eye
movements and hemispheric asymmetry: A critical
review. Psychological Bulletin. 85. 1080-1101.
Etcoff, N. (1984). Perceptual and conceptual organization of
facial emotions. Brain and Cognition. 3, 385-412.
Ferguson, G. A. (1971). Statistical Analysis in Psychology &
Education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fowles, D. C. (1988). Psychophysiology and psychopathology:
A motivational apprach. Psychophysiology, 25, 373-391.
Fridlund, A. J., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Guidelines for
human electromyographic research. Psychophysiology. 23.
567-589.
Fridlund, A., Ekman, P., & Oster, H. (1987). Facial
expressions of emotion: Review of literature,
1970-1983. In A. Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.),
Nonverbal behavior and communication. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fox, N. A., Sc Davidson, R. J. (1984). Hemispheric substrates
of affect: A developmental model. In: N. A. Fox & R. J.
Davidson (Eds.), The psychobiology of affective
development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gainotti, G. (1972). Emotional behavior and hemispheric side
of the lesion. Cortex. 8., 41-55.
Gardner, H., Brownell, H. H., Wapner, W., & Michelon, D.
(1983). Missing the point: The role of the right
hemisphere in the processing of complex linguistic
materials. In E. Perceman (Ed.), Cognitive processing
in the right hemisphere. New York: Academic.
Gardner, H., Ling, P. K., Flam, I., & Silverman, J. (1975).
Comprehension and appreciation of humorous material
following brain damage. Brain. 98., 3 99-412.
Goldstein, K. (1948). Language and language disturbances.
New York: Grue Sc Stratton.
Gorelick, P. B., & Ross, E. D. (1987). The aprosodias:
Further functional-anatomical evidence for the
organization of affective language in the right


191
Table C-5 ANOVA Table of Mean HR Change from baseline during Shock
Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG of
F
Group
6.001
3
2.000
1.557
.2137
Subj ect(Group)
55.246
43
1.285
Tone
. 061
1
. 061
. 050
. 8236
Tone by Group
3.347
3
1.116
. 927
.4361
Tone by
Subj ect
(Group)
51.766
43
1.204


234
Table C-68 Kruskal-Wallis Tests of SAM Ratings comparing Shock and
Reward Tasks
Corrected for Ties
Chi-
Square
Significance
Chi-
Square
Significance
Valence
(Shock-
Control)
1.7674
. 6220
1.8007
. 6148
Valence
(Reward-
Control)
.6909
. 8753
. 7043
. 8722
Arousal
(Shock-
Control)
1.2634
.7378
1.3071
. 7274
Arousal
(Reward-
Control)
4.4192
.2196
5.1711
.1597
Dominance
(Shock-
Control)
3.3178
.3452
3.8878
.2738
Dominance
(Reward-
Control)
.5085
. 9170
. 8345
. 8412


36
right temporal parietal regions are involved in
interpretation of emotional information and evidence that
implicates the frontal regions of both hemispheres in the
experience of mood. Heller (1990) stated that the right
parietal cortex mediates both cortical and autonomic
arousal, while bilateral frontal regions mediate valence.
She purported that experience of emotion is associated with
patterns of activation in frontal and parietal brain
regions.
Summary
As reviewed in the preceding sections, most evidence
supportive of the bivalent model has been derived from two
lines of research. These include: (a) findings of different
mood reactions following right versus left hemisphere
lesions, particularly those involving the anterior regions;
and (b) findings in normals of hemispheric EEG activation
asymmetries during induction of positive versus negative
mood. In contrast, data from neuropsychological studies of
affect perception are more in line with the view that the
right hemisphere is critically involved in appraising
nonverbal emotional signals, regardless of their valence.
The discrepancy between such studies corresponds to the
distinction raised by Heller (1990) between interpretation
of emotion (viewed to be right hemisphere dependent) versus
the regulation of mood (which is not viewed to be right
hemisphere specific).


194
Table C-10 T-Tests of D1 during the No-Shock Condition of
Block 1 during the Shock Task
Mean Diff.
DF
T-value
P-value
LHD, CONS
. 985
33
1.353
. 1852
LHD, RHD
.425
22
. 633
. 5331
RHD, CONS
- 560
33
- .860
.3962
Table C-ll T-Tests of D1 during the No-Shock Condition of Block
2 during the Shock Task
Mean.
Diff.
DF
T-value
P-value
LHD,
CONS
-1.773
33
-2.103
. 0432
LHD,
RHD
-2.183
22
-2.624
. 0155
RHD,
CONS
- .410
33
-.596
.5555
Table C-12 T-Tests of D1 during the No-Shock Condition of Block
3 during the Shock Task
Mean Diff.
DF
T-value
P-value :
LHD, CONS
-2.063
33
-2.515
. 0170
LHD, RHD
-1.717
22
-1.579
. 1285
RHD, CONS
.346
33
. 546
. 5890
Table C-13 T-Tests of D1 duirng the No-Shock Condition of Block
4 during the Shock Task
Mean Diff.
DF
T-value
P-value
LHD,
CONS
- 140
33
- .240
. 8117
LHD,
RHD
-1.100
22
-1.453
.1604
RHD,
CONS
- 960
33
-1.556
. 1293


93
following Al within the 6-second period). One subject was
excluded from the LK NC group due to unusually high and
variable heart rate. Figure C-l, C-2 and C-3 depict the
heart rate wave forms in half second intervals for the NCS,
RHD, and LHD subjects respectively.
Average heart rare change from baseline was examined
using repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) for
the shock condition with group as the between subjects
factor (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS) and condition (shock, no
shock) as the within subject factor. The analyses
revealed no group differences [F(3,43) = 1.55, P = .214] as
well as no differences between the shock and no-shock
conditions [F(l,43) = .050, P = .824]. The interaction of
group and condition was also not significant [F(3,43) =
.927, P = .436] The means for each group were as follows:
LHD mean=-.558, sd=.9S5; LH NCS mean=-.130, sd=.650; RHD
mean=.139, sd=1.556; RH NCS mean=-.121, sd=1.01. The
complete ANOVA table is depicted in Table C-5 of Appendix C.
Heart rate D1 was examined using repeated measures
analyses of variance ANOVAS) with group (LHD, LH NCS, RHD,
RH NCS) as the between subject factor. The two within
subject factors were block (1 to 4) and condition (shock and
no-shock). Analysis of D1 revealed that there was a
significant three way interaction between group, condition,
and block [F(9,43) = 2.09, P < 05]. None of the other
interactions or main effects were significant. The full


Anticipation of Affective Stimuli
Anticipation of affective stimuli has also been used to
elicit emotion. Lang, Ohman, and Simons (1978) described
the triphasic response of cardiac activity during a 4-8
second anticipation period. They reported that the onset of
the preparatory period is characterized by a brief
deceleration (Dl). The initial deceleration is followed by
an acceleratory peak (Al). Lastly, a deceleration occurs
which lasts until the end of the preparatory interval (D2).
Dl is observed when subjects are presented with single pure
tones which are not followed by other stimuli and is thought
to be an index of orientation. The acceleratory phase is
seen in response to an abrupt stimulus or single stimulus
with an uncomfortable intensity level. Al has been
interpreted as an index of a defensive reflex. It has also
been evoked in the absence of noxious stimuli and during
problem solving or mentation.
According to Lang et. al (1978), most investigators
interpret the second deceleration, D2, as an index of
anticipation of an overt response. D2, however, has been
conditioned in classical conditioning paradigm even though
no motor response is required. Consequently, D2 has also
been viewed as an index of an attentive set. Similar HR
patterns have been found by Simons, Ohman, and Lang (1979)
in response to anticipation of slides (Simons, Ohman, &
Lang, 1979; Klorman & Ryan, 1980) .


96
condition was within-subject factors. There were no
significant main effects or interactions. The overall means
for each group are as follows: (LHD mean=1.70, sd=3.70; LH
NCS mean=l.61, sd=2.88; RHD mean=2.02, sd=4.10; RH NCS
mean=l.90, sd=3.47). The ANOVA tables, Table C-14, is
presented in Appendix C.
The same type of repeated measures analyses with group
as the between subjects factor and condition and block as
the within subject factors was used to examine D2. Analysis
of D2 revealed that there were no significant main effects.
There was, however, a significant block by group interaction
[F(9,43) = 2.34, P < .05] See Table C-15 in Appendix C
for details of the ANOVA table. The means for each group
for each block are presented below.
Table 4-3 Means and Standard Deviations for D2 during the
Shock Condition
Block
One
Block
Two
Block
Three
Block
Four
LHD
- 779
(2.416)
-2.008
(3.1996)
- 638
(2.962)
. 038
(2.172)
LH NCS
- 977
(1.499)
- 182
(1.362)
. 123
(1.479)
- 114
(1.360)
RHD
. 075
(1.824)
. 179
(2.717)
- 629
(1.190)
- 833
(3.039)
RH NCS
- 633
(3.429)
- 650
(1.989)
- .446
(2.069)
- .465
(1.998)
To further examine the block by group interaction,
separate ANOVAs were performed for each block. Group was
the between subjects factor. There were no significant


87
models of emotion. For example, autonomic arousal (SCR and
HR) may be mediated by the right hemisphere and hence RHD
patients would show diminished responding during both shock
and reward tasks. At the same time, facial activity, a more
accurate index of valence, may provide support for the
valence hypothesis such that RHD patients show reduced
corrugator muscle activity during negative emotions, but
accentuated zygomatic activity during positive emotion,
whereas LHD patients would show the reverse pattern. The
above is only one example of support for both the bivalent
and global models. There are other possible outcomes
indicating support for both models.


260
Simons, R. F., Ohman, A., & Lang, P. J. (1979). Anticipation
and response set: Cortical, cardiac, and electrodermal
correlates. Psychophysiology. 16. 222-233.
Sinyor, D., Jacques, P., Kaloupek, D. G., Becker, R.,
Goldenberg, M., & Coopersmith, H. (1986).
Poststroke depression and lesion location. Brain.
109. 537-546.
Sirota, A. D., Schwartz, G. E., & Kristeller, J. L. (1987).
Facial muscle activity during induced mood states:
differential growth and carry-over of elated versus
depressed patterns. Psychophysiology. 24. 691-699.
Slomine, B. S., & Greene, A. F. (1993). Anger imagery and
corrugator electromyography. Journal of Psychosomatic
Research. 37. 671-676.
Sokolov, E. N. (1963). Perception and the conditioned
reflex. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. E. (1970) .
Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Starkstein, S. E., Robinson, R. G., & Price, T. R. (1987).
Comparison of cortical and subcortical lesions in the
production of poststroke mood disorders. Brain. 110.
1045-1059.
Suberi, M., & Mckeever, W. (1977). Differential right
hemisphere memory storage of emotional and
nonemotional faces. Neuropsvchologia. 15., 757-768.
Tassinary, L. G., Cacioppo, J. T., & Geen, T. R. (1989) A
psychometric study of surface electrode placements for
facial electromyographic recording: The brow and cheek
muscle regions. Psychophysiology. 26. 1-16.
Terzian, H. (1964). Behavioral and EEG effects of
intracarotid sodium amytal injections. Acta
Neurochiurgica. 12. 230-240.
Tomarken, A. J., & Davidson, R. J. (1992). Fear an the face:
Differential accessibility of fear and disgust to the
face. Cited in R. J. Davidson, Parsing affective space:
Perspectives from neuropsychology and psychophysiology.
Submitted for publication.
Tomkins, S. (1962). Affect, imagery, and consciousness: The
Positive affects. Vol. 1. New York: Springer.


109
NCS=-.178, sd=.747; RHD= -.467, sd=.853; RH NCS= -.370,
1.021.
As mentioned above Dl, A1, and D2 data were analyzed
separately using repeated measures ANOVAs with group as the
between subject factor and condition (reward, no-reward) and
block (1 to 4) as the within subject factors. There were no
significant main effects or interactions for any of the
three variables. ANOVA tables for these three variables are
in Appendix C, Tables C-41, C-42, and C-43. A table of
means for each of the three variables by group is presented
below.
Table 4-5 Means and Standard Deviations of Dl, A1, and D2
for the Reward Condition
Dl
Al
D2
LHD
-2
46
(3
56)
1
. 71
(3
. 82)
-1.05
(3
. 83)
LH NCS
-1
36
(1
75)
1
. 06
(2
.16)
- .32
(2 .
23)
RHD
-1
57
(2
24)
95
(2 .
52)
- 69
(2 .
38)
RH NCS
-2
22
(2
90)
1
. 70
(3
. 87)
-1.27
(2
. 93)
To sum, overall heart rate along with Dl, Al, and D2
were not significantly different between the reward and
reward-control trials. Additionally, there were no group
differences in overall heart rate or Dl, Al, and D2.
Skin conductance. Similar to the shock task,
percentage of SCR responses and recoded range corrected SCR
were analyzed separately. Also, one RHD subject was
excluded from analyses due to corrupt data.


42
Lacey and Lacey (1970). Heart rate typically increases in
response to feared stimuli when presented visually or
imagined. On the other hand, HR deceleration follows the
visual presentation of a novel or interesting stimulus,
whereas imaging of a novel or interesting stimuli produces
HR acceleration followed by deceleration.
Facial Electromyography (EMG)
Before describing the facial electromyography research,
the neuroanatomical pathways involved in facial muscle
movements will be briefly reviewed. Motor neurons send
information from the brain to innervate muscle and can be
distinguished from sensory neurons which bring information
to the brain. There are two types of motor neurons: upper
motor neurons (UMN) and lower motor neurons (LMN). Upper
motor neurons carry impulses from motor centers in the brain
to the brain stem and spinal cord. Lower motor neurons
carry information from brain stem and spinal cord to
muscles. At the UMN level, fibers from either the
contralateral or both hemispheres supply impulses to the LMN
nucleus, the motor nucleus of the facial nerve, which
innervates muscles of facial expression. The voluntary and
involuntary motor pathways mediating facial expression are
distinct from one another. Voluntary movement is mediated
by the corticobulbar tract, originating in the precentral
gyrus of the motor cortex of the frontal lobe. The
involuntary pathway includes the basal ganglia, red nucleus,


255
Lang, P. J. (1979). A bio-informational theory of emotional
imagery. Psychophysiology, 16. 495-512.
Lang, P. J. (1984). Cognition in emotion: concept and
action. In C. E. Izard, J. Kagan, & R. B. Zajonc
(Eds.), Emotions, Cognition, and Behavior. New
YorK: Cambridge University Press.
Lang, P. J. (1985). Cognition in emotion: concept and
action. In C. E. Izard, J. Kagan, R. B. Zajonc
(Eds.), Emotions, Cognition, and behavior.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lang, P. J., Kozak, M. J., Miller, G. A., Levin, D. N., &
McLean, A., Jr. (1980). Emotional imagery: Conceptual
structure & pattern of somato-visceral response.
Psychophysiology. 17. 179-192.
Lang, P. J., Melamad, B. G., & Hart, J. (1970). A
psychophysiological analysis of fear modification
using an automated desensitization procedure.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 76, 220-234.
Lang, P. J., Ohman, A., & Simons, R. F. (1978). The
psychophysiology of anticipation. In J. Requin
(Ed.), Attention and performance VII. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lange, C. G. (1922). The emotions: A psychophysiological
study. In K. Dunlap (Ed.), Psychological Classics, Vol.
1: The emotions. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins
Company.
Lazarus, R. S., & Averill, J. R. (1972). Emotion and
cognition: With special reference to anxiety. In
C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety: Contemporary
Theory and Research. New York: Academic Press.
LeDoux, J. E. (1989). Cognitive-emotional interactions in
the brain. Cognition and Emotion. 3, 267-289.
LeDoux, J. E. (1994). Emotion, memory and the brain.
Scientific American. 50-57.
LeDoux, J., Sakaguchi, A., & Reis, D. J. (1984). Subcortical
afferent projections of the medulla geniculate nucleus
mediate emotional responses conditioned to acoustic
stimuli. Journal of Neuroscience. 4, 683-698.
Leonard, C., Rolls, E., Wilson, A. (1985). Neurons in the
amygdala of the monkeys with responses selective for
faces. Behavioral Brain Research. 15. 159-176.


170
Table B-2 Medications taken by the RH NCS
Group
Medications
RC1
Hydrochlorothiazide
RC2
None
RC3
None
RC4
Corgard*, Hytrin*, Diazide
RC5
Tagamet
RC6
Vasotec*
RC7
None
RC8
Clinoril
RC9
Ibprophen, Metiprolol*, Nifedipine*,
RC10
None
RC11
None
RC12
Sudafed
* affects the autonomic nervous system


129
3.44, P < .001], and dominance [Z = -2.55, P < .05].
Specifically, subjects reported less pleasant feelings
during the shock trial (mean=2.60'' compared to the control
trial (mean=1.69), greater arousal during the shock
(mean=3.88) compared to the control (mean=4.58). They also
reported feeling less in control during the shock
(mean=4.29) compared to control trial (mean=4.75).
There were no group differences in the valence and
dominance ratings during both the shock and control trials.
There was however, a significant group difference in arousal
rating during the control trial, but not the shock trial.
The Kruskal-Wallis Tests are presented in Table C-75 in
Appendix C.
Mann-Whitney U Tests were used to examine the group
effects. Both the LHD group (mean=4.833, sd=.577), [Z=-2.12,
P < .05] and the RHD group (mean=4.92, sd=.289), [Z=-2.27, P
< .05] reported significantly less arousal during the
control condition compared to the LH NCS (mean=4.00,
sd=1.35). The LHD and RHD group ratings were not
significantly different from the RH NCS, (mean=4.58,
sd=.515). The Mann-Whitney U tests are presented in in
Table C-76 in Appendix C.
Summary of results of shock task. Subjects reported
more negative affect, less pleasantness, more arousal, and
less dominance during the shock compared to the no-shock
condition. There were no differences in ratings of the


Table 4-13 Comparison of SCR and Verbal Report in RHD Patients
AGE
Shk
%SCR
No-S
%SCR
Shk
SCR
No-S
SCR
Val
Aro
Dom
Lesion
R
1
73
0
0
0.00
0.00
3
. 5
1
Mixed
39,40
R
2
73
5
0
5.00
0.00
1
-2
- 5
Mixed
R
3
74
0
0
0.00
0.00
0
- 5
. 5
Pos .
R
4
64
20
5
5.53
5.00
2
-1
. 5
P.Ant.
R
6
25
15
11.80
9.46
3.5
-4
-1.5
i
Pos .
R
7
76
15
5
7.23
5.00
4
0
. 5
Mixed
R
8
64
0
0
0.00
0.00
1
-2
-1.5
Pos .
R
1
1
57
0
0
0.00
0.00
0
-1
0
P.Ant.
R
1
2
48
25
20
9.81
9.07
2
- 5
0
No
Scan
R
1
3
65
20
20
6.75
6.59
0
0
0
Mixed
39,40
R
1
4
49
55
60
10.54
20.14
3
-3
2
Mixed
39,40
Note: Shk=shock condition; No-S=No-shock condition; Val=valence;
Aro=arousal; Dom=dominance; (P.Ant)^primarily anterior; (Pos. ) ^posterior;
(39,40)=mixed involving areas 3 9 and 4 0


116
The means for each variable by group are reported in the
table below.
Table 4-7 Group Means and Standard Deviations of D1, A1 and
D2 comparing Shock and Reward Conditions
D1
Al
D2
LHD
- 129
(3.809)
.211
(4.466)
. 677
(4.415)
LH NCS
. 232
(2.005)
. 500
(2.628)
. 320
(2.553)
RHD
-.2997
(3.401)
- 855
(4.654)
- .404
(3.684)
RH NCS
. 269
(3.451)
. 144
(4.649)
. 183
(4.061)
To sum, there were no differences between the shock and
reward tasks or group differences in overall heart rate.
Also, there were no differences between groups, blocks, or
tasks in heart rate DI, Al, and D2.
Skin conductance. The shock and reward tasks were
directly compared by calculating new variables by
subtracting the percentage of responses for control trials
from the percentage of responses for respective stimuli
trials (shock minus shock-control and reward minus reward-
control) The shock and reward tasks were also directly
compared to examine differences in recoded range corrected
skin conductance responses (SCR). Again the no-shock and
no-reward control trials were subtracted from their
respective stimulus trials separately for each task and
block. Also, one subject from the RHD group was excluded
due to corrupt data.


Table B-3 Medications taken by the LHD Group
Group
Medications
L2
Aspirin, Loniten, Cardura*
L3
Thyroid, Triamcinalone acetonide
inhaler, Albuterace, Postassium
Chloride, Furosimide, Lisinopril*,
Glyburide
L4
None
L5
Aspirin
L6
Digoxin*, Aspirin
L7
Tagemet, Coumadin
L8
Coumadin, Quinidine, Digoxin*, Vasotec*
L9
Atenolol*, Coumadin
LI 0
Verapamil*, Prednizone, Darvon
LI 1
Capozide*
L12
Coumadin, Arthritis medication
L13
Aspirin, Lopressor*


39
response to high intensity or aversive stimuli and helps the
organism to limit activity with the stimulus. This response
includes increases in sympathetic activity such as cephalic
vasoconstriction and increase in skin conductance.
Lacey and Lacey (1970) extended Sokolov's views of
autonomic responding. They suggested that heart rate
acceleration (tachycardia) during acute affective states is
not a index of arousal per se, but reflects instead the
organism's attempt to limit or terminate bodily turmoil
produced by some stimulus. By contrast, heart rate
deceleration (bradycardia) is induced with intention to
respond to a task, attention to stimuli, and during
vicariously experienced stress. Thus, Lacey and Lacey
argued that the cardiovascular system is not a nonspecific
index of arousal, but a highly specialized response
mechanism which is integrated with affect and cognition and
which also reveals individual differences in the way people
deal with the environment.
Graham and Clifton (1966) pointed out that Sokolov
(1963) and the Laceys (1958) agreed on the existence of an
orienting and defensive response. However, Graham and
Clifton indicated that they did not agree on the
relationship between orienting and defensive responses and
heart rate. Sokolov inferred that heart rate (HR)
acceleration was related to increased sensitivity of
incoming stimuli, whereas HR deceleration was related to


82
condition for four blocks, each containing five control
trials and five stimulus trials. An average baseline score
was derived for the high and low tones for each trial block.
Beats per minute change was then determined by subtracting
the baseline value from each half second beats/minute
average for each trial block. Those values were then used
to designate average Dl, A1, and D2 for each subject for the
stimuli and control blocks within each condition. Dl was
designated as the lowest point within the first 3 seconds.
The highest point following Dl was considered Al. D2 was
the lowest point following A1. If the last value in the six
second period was the Al, D2 and A1 were the same.
Skin conductance
A computer program calculated baseline, skin
conductance response (change from baseline), range-corrected
skin conductance response scores (minimum and maximum values
within each experimental condition was used in the
calculations), and half recovery time. Data was divided
into four blocks, each containing five control trials and
five stimulus trials. One average range-corrected SCR was
calculated for each stimuli and control block within each
condition. Additionally, range corrected SCR was also
recoded by changing all values under .02 micro ohms to zero.
An average recoded range corrected SCR was calculated for
each stimulus and control block within each condition.


150
the mid sixties and many of the subjects over 70 years of
age. It is possibly that age produces a greater decrease in
EMG amplitude in subjects over 65.
Additionally, sex differences may have played a role in
the lack of significant EMG findings. Females have been
found to generate facial EMG of greater amplitude during
affective imagery, show a stronger correlation between
ratings of emotional experience and facial EMG, and
demonstrate greater facial EMG during voluntary facial
expression as compared to males (Schwartz, Brown, & Ahern,
1980; Dimberg & Lundquist, 1990). Since all but two
subjects in this study were males, the facial EMG changes
may be attenuated compared to findings in a mixed gender or
female sample.
Verbal report
The differences in ratings of emotional experience
revealed that, as predicted, subjects reported more
unpleasantness, more arousal, and less control during the
shock compared with shock-control trials. While the
underlying emotional state of the subjects can not be
inferred with certainty from their ratings, the
appropriateness of the ratings illustrates that the subjects
were able to accurately perceive the expected emotional tone
of the situation when asked about the situation at a later
time.


49
Psychophysiological responses of HR and skin
conductance have been measured during anticipation of
electric shock. Deane (1961) found that during anticipation
of shock, HR accelerated over the baseline level.
Additionally, in the groups who expected to receive shock
when a 'target' number was presented, there was HR
deceleration immediately preceding that number, even though,
in one of these groups no shock had ever been received.
These finding have been replicated (Elliot, 1966; Deane,
1969; Hodges & Spielberger, 1966). Threat of electric shock
has also been found to produce increases in SCR (Bowers,
1971a, 1971b). Positron emission tomography (PET)
measurements of regional blood flow have also been obtained
during anticipation of electric shock (Reiman, Fusselman,
Fox, & Raichle, 1989). Reiman and colleagues found that
during anticipatory anxiety, there was significant blood
flow increases to both temporal poles.
The investigation of the psychophysiology of pleasant
and appetitive anticipation has received minimal attention
in the experimental human literature. Consequently,
psychophysiological responding during pleasant anticipation
must be inferred from other studies. Based on the results
of the above literature, it is likely that anticipation of
pleasant stimuli would evoke physiological changes similar
to those found during presentation of pleasant stimuli
(i.e., increased zygomatic EMG and SCR) Also, based on the


143
Table 4-14 Comparison of SCR and Verbal Report in LHD patients
AG
Shk
No-S
Shk
No-S
Val
Aro
Dom
Lesion
E
%SCR
%SCR
SCR
SCR
L
72
0
0
0.00
0.00
1.5
0
0
Pos .
2
L
76
10
5
8.23
1.90
2
0
-1
Pos.
3
-
L
67
25
15
13.99
18.42
4
-1
0
Pos .
4
L
60
0
0
0.00
0.00
1
0
0
Mixed
5
3 9,40
L
68
25
25
8.98
10.84
3
-2.5
-1
Mixed
6
L
50
85
95
47.85
33.72
2
-1.5
0
Pos .
7
L
72
25
15
10.95
2.92
1.5
-1
0
Pos .
8
L
60
0
0
0.00
0.00
3
-3
-3
Ant .
9
L
68
5
0
5.00
0.00
2
-2
-2
Pos .
1
0
L
76
0
0
0.00
0.00
3
-2.5
-1
P. Ant
1
1
L
70
15
30
7.84
19.24
2
0
0
P. Pos
1
2
L
62
5
0
5.00
0.00
3.5
-2
0
Mixed
1
3
Note: Shk=shock condition; No-S=No-shock condition; Val=valence;
Aro=arousal; Dom=dominance; (P.Ant)^primarily anterior; (Pos.)=posterior;
(39,40)=mixed involving areas 39 and 40


84
verbal report measures of affective states were given.
These included the Self Assessment Manikin and the Positive
and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) (Watson, Clark, &
Tellegen, 1988). The SAM was described in the methods for
Experiment 1 above. The Positive and negative affect
schedule is comprised of two 10-item mood scales. Using
factor analysis positive affect (PA) and negative affect
(NA) factors have been identified. The directions used
were, "How are you feeling right now?" The experiment
inserted each item into the blank. Subjects were asked to
rate the intensity of each feeling on a scale of 1 to 5,
with 1 corresponding to "not at all" and 5 corresponding to
"extremely."
Procedure
This study consists of two parts, an anticipatory shock
task and an anticipatory reward tasks condition which were
counterbalanced, and described below.
Anticipatory shock task
This task had two parts, a shock and a no-shock
condition. In the shock condition, the subject waited five
minutes to receive a shock. Subjects were told that they
would receive a shock five minutes after hearing the warning
tone and that the strength of this shock was either the same
or greater than that previously given in Experiment 1. At
the end of the five minutes, subjects were given the same
intensity of shock they had previous received in Experiment


162
slower reaction times regardless of the hand they used in a
task. They suggested that because patients with RHD have
reduced behavioral evidence of activation, that RHD mediates
the activation process. Specifically, these authors suggest
that the left hemisphere prepares the right extremities for
action, whereas the right hemisphere prepares both sides of
the body for responding. Thus, according to this theory,
the decreased autonomic responding in the RHD group can be
explained by their deficit in global physiological readiness
to respond. The decreased SCRs in most of the LHD group can
not be explained by this theory.
Tranel and Damasio (1994) examined 36 patients with
brain damage who had detailed neuroanatomic evaluations of
their lesions. They found two areas in patients with
unilateral brain damage which affect SCR to positive and
negative emotional slides. One area was the cingulate gyrus
in either the right and left hemisphere. The other area was
the supramarginal gyrus and angular gyrus on the right side
only. In the present study, when subjects were divided into
anterior and posterior lesions, right hemisphere patients
with posterior lesions had smaller SCRs during the shock
condition compared to RHD subjects with anterior lesions.
The opposite trend was found in the LHD group. These trends
are consistent with the findings of Tranel and Damasio
regarding the supramarginal and angular gyri on the right.
The differences in responding in patients with lesions


199
Table C-23 T-Tests of Percentage of SCR Response during the
Shock Condtion of the Shock Task
Mean Diff.
DF
T-value
P-value
LHD, CONS
-27.917
34
-2.582
. 0143
LHD, RHD
1.250
21
. 143
. 8873
RHD, CONS
29.167
33
2.734
. 0100
Table C-24 T-Tests of Percentage of SCR Response during the No-
Shock Condition of the Shock Task
Mean Diff.
DF
T-value
P-value
LHD,
CONS
-10.417
34
-1.095
.2811
LHD,
RHD
4.053
21
.416
.6815 !
RHD,
CONS
14.470
33
-1.627
. 1133


130
positive affect factor of the PANAS. Additionally, there
were no group differences in reported in any variable, with
the exception of the arousal ratings during the control
condition. During the no-shock control condition the RHD
and LHD groups reported significantly less arousal than the
LH NCS, but not the RH NCS.
Reward condition
Positive and negative affect schedule. Repeated
measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to explore
positive affect factor (PA) and negative affect factor (NA)
for the reward conditions. The between subject factor was
group (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS) and the within subject
factor was condition (reward, no-reward control). Results
revealed that there was a significant main effect of
condition for PA [F(l,44) = 7.52 P < .01]. The mean score
was 33.38 for the reward trial and 30.26 for the control
trial indicating that subjects reported more positive affect
during the reward compared to the reward-control trial.
Examination of means revealed no significant main effects or
interaction were found for NA. These two ANOVA tables,
Table C-77 and C-78, are presented in Appendix C.
Self-assessment manikin. Valence, arousal, and
dominance ratings were analyzed using Wilcoxon and Kruskal-
Wallis Tests. Examination of the verbal report ratings of
valence, arousal, and dominance during the reward and
reward-control trials revealed a main effect for trial for


versus the self-regulation of emotion: Sex
differences. Psychophysiology. 16, 202-203.
250
Davidson, R. J., Schwartz, G. E., Saron, C., Bennett, J., &
Goldman, D. J. (1979). Frontal versus parietal EEG
asymmetry during positive and negative affect.
Psychophysiology. 16, 202-203.
Deane, G. E. (1961). Human heart rate responses during
experimentally induced anxiety. Journal of Experimental
Psychology. 61. 489-493.
Deane, G. E. (1969). Cardiac activity during experimentally
induced anxiety. Psychophysiology. 6, 17-30.
DeKosky, S., Heilman, K. M., Bowers, D., & Valenstein, E.
(1980). Recognition and discrimination of emotional
faces and pictures. Brain and Language. 9., 206-214.
Denny-Brown, D., Meyer, J. S., & Horenstein, S. (1952). The
significance of perceptual rivalry resulting from
parietal lesions. Brain. 75., 434-471.
Dimberg, U. & Lundquist, L. (1990). Gender differences in
facial reactions to facial expressions. Biological
Psychology. 30. 151-159.
Duda, P. & Brown, J. (1984). Lateral asymmetry of positive
and negative emotions. Cortex. 20., 253-261.
Duffy, E. (1957). The psychological significance of the
concept of "arousal" and "activation." Psychological
Review. 64. 265-275.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1971). Constants across
cultures in the face and emotion. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 17. 124-129.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1978). The facial action
coding system (FACS): A technique for the measurement
of facial action. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Ekman, P., Levenson, R. W., & Friesen, W. V. (1983) .
Autonomic nervous system activity distinguishes
among emotions. Science. 221. 1208-1210.
Elliot, R. (1966). Effects of uncertainty about the nature
and advent of a noxious stimulus (shock) upon heart
rate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3.,
353-356.


104
the CONS. During the shock trials, however, the RHD and LHD
group had fewer responses than the CONS, whereas there were
no group differences during the no-shock trials. Subjects
demonstrated greater magnitude of responding during the
shock compared to the no shock condition. Also, there was a
significantly greater magnitude during block 1, than blocks
2, 3, and 4. Additionally, the shock tone produced
significantly greater magnitude of responding when compared
to the no-shock tone during blocks 1 and 4. Also, during
shock anticipation the RHD group had significantly smaller
responses than the CONS, whereas the LHD group did not
significantly differ from any of the other groups.
Facial electromyography (EMG). Ipsilateral corrugator
EMG (CEMG), left zygomatic EMG (ZGL), and right zygomatic
EMG (ZGR) were analyzed separately using change from
baseline as the dependent variables. Repeated measures
ANOVAs were employed. Group was the between subject factor
(LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS). Block (one to four) and
condition (high and low) were the within subject factors.
Results of the analyses revealed no significant main effects
or interactions for either CEMG or ZGR. The mean change
scores by group for each variable are presented in the Table
4-4 below. The ANOVA tables, Table C-31 and C-32 are
presented in Appendix C.


71
Any patient with a pacemaker was excluded. All
subjects were questioned about hearing and visual defects.
All medications taken by the subjects on the day of the
psychophysiological measurements were recorded and a list of
these medications is provided in Table B-l, B-2, B-3, and B-
4 of Appendix B.
All subjects were administered the Zung Depression
Rating Scale. No group differences were found in their self
report of depression on the Zung [F(3,41) = 2.134, P =
.1107]. The mean scores and standard deviations on the Zung
are as follows: LHD (mean=38.636, sd=5.29); LH NCS
(mean=36.091, sd=5.28); RHD (mean=40.167, sd=7.814); RH NCS
(mean=34.091, sd=5.991).
The RHD and LHD subjects all had a CT or MRI performed
for clinical purposes. To be included, patients had a
discrete abnormal area compatible with cerebral infarction
on the head scan. Patients with tumors, hemorrhages,
trauma, or bilateral cerebral infarcts were excluded. All
subjects were tested at least 5 months post stroke in order
to control for possible changes in autonomic responsivity
over time. A t-test was conducted to examine group
differences in the amount of time since the last cortical
stroke. No differences were found between the groups
[T(l,22) = .588, P = .5626] The average time in months for
the LHD group was 78, sd=72.72 and the average time in
months for the RHD group was 60.92, sd=69.59.


80
and a smiling face. The number on the message corresponded
to the total number of dollars and/or lottery tickets won.
As in the anticipatory anxiety task, the tone designating
the control trials, the low tone, was not followed by
anything.
For both the shock and reward tasks, a square appeared
on the screen, during the 6 second period between tone and
stimulus. A cross gradually enlarged within the square. By
the end of the six seconds, the cross would touch each side
of the square and the screen would go blank. Since it is
unclear how patients with cortical strokes estimate time,
the square and growing cross were used to control for time
estimation by helping all of the subjects keep tract of time
during the six second period.
During both the anticipatory shock and anticipatory
reward tasks, the procedure was interrupted after each block
of 10 trials. At that time, the experimenter entered the
room and administered to the subjects the three-item Self-
Assessment Manikin (SAM) (Hodes, Cook, & Lang, 1985) The
SAM, which is described below, is designed as a self-report
measure of valence (pleasantness-unpleasantness), arousal,
and dominance (control).
The Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) measures subjective
ratings of three independent affective dimensions which have
been derived from factor analytic studies (Hodes, Cook, &
Lang, 1985). The three dimensions include valence (pleasant


61
facial, and verbal report) during the anticipatory anxiety
(negative emotion) situation relative to their responses
during anticipatory reward (positive emotion). The LHD
group would show the opposite pattern.
Specific Predictions for Experiment 1: Psvchophvsioloqical
Arousal and Facial EMG during Anticipatory Anxiety and
Anticipatory Reward in Patients with RHP and LHD
Normal control group (NHD)
In line with previous research, it is anticipated that
the normal control group (NHD) will experience unpleasant
emotion (anticipatory anxiety) during the shock anticipation
condition and more pleasant emotion (anticipatory reward)
during the prize anticipation. Specific predictions
regarding psychophysiological responsivity (HR, SCR) and
facial EMG are derived from empirical research with emotion-
inducing stimuli. A replication of previous findings is
expected such that:
1. Compared to baseline HR, a HR triphasic response (Dl,
Al, D2) will be observed during shock anticipation and
prize anticipation. The A1, acceleratory peak, is
expected to be greater during shock than during prize
anticipation. In some subjects, however, deceleration
only may be observed during prize anticipation.
Relative to the experimental trials, attenuated HR
change will occur during control trials.
2. Compared to baseline SCR, SCR will be greater during
shock and prize anticipation compared to no shock/no


hemisphere. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and
Psychiatry. 50. 553-560.
252
Graham, F. K., & Clifton, R. K. (1966).Heart rate changes as
a component of the orienting response. Psychological
Bulletin. 65. 305-320.
Graves, R., Landis, T., & Goodlass, H. (1981). Laterality
and sex differences for visual recognition of emotional
and nonemotional words. Neuropsvchologia. 19, 95-102.
Greenwald, M. K., Cook, E. W., & Lang, P. J. (1989) .
Affective judgment and psychophysiological
response: dimensional covariation in the
evaluation of picture stimuli. Journal of
Psychophysiology. 3., 51-64.
Haggard, M. P., & Parkinson, A. M. (1971). Stimulus and task
factors as determinants of ear advantages. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology. 23. 168-177.
Hare. R. D. (1972). Cardiovascular components of orienting
and defensive responses. Psychophysiology. 9., 606-614.
Hare, R. D. (1973). Orienting and defensive responses to
visual stimuli. Psychophysiology. 10., 453-464.
Heilman, K. M., Bowers, D., Speedie, L., & Coslett, B.
(1984) Comprehension of affective and nonaffective
speech. Neurology. 34., 917-921.
Heilman, K. M., Bowers, D., & Valenstein, E. (1985).
Emotional disorders associated with neurologic
disease. In K. Heilman & E. Valenstein (Eds.).
Clinical Neuropsychology (2nd Ed). New York:
Oxford Press
Heilman, K. M., Bowers, D., & Valenstein, E. (1993).
Emotional disorders associated with neurologic
disease. In K. Heilman & E. Valenstein (Eds.).
Clinical Neuropsychology (3rd Ed). New York:
Oxford Press
Heilman, K. M., Scholes, R., & Watson, R. T. (1975).
Auditory affective agnosia: Disturbed
comprehension of affective speech. Journal of
Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry. 38., 69-
72 .
Heilman, K. M., Schwartz, H. D., & Watson, R. T. (1978).
Hypoarousal in patients with the neglect syndrome and
emotional indifference. Neurology. 28., 229-232.


103
(mean=20.52, sd=16.03), [T=(l,33) = 3.10, P < .017]. The
LHD group (mean=8.99, sd=13.13) was not significantly
different from any of the other groups. The difference
between the LHD group and the CONS approached significance
[T(l,34) = -2.152, P = .0386], suggesting that the LHD group
had less responding compared to the CONS during the shock
condition.
Examination of the means and standard deviations of the
SCR revealed large standard deviations compared to the
means. Thus, the overall ANOVA was conducted with log
transformed data. Using log transformation, the findings
remained the same as above.
Since past studies have found a significant positive
correlation between SCR and arousal ratings, the
correlations between range corrected skin conductance
magnitude and the arousal ratings during the shock condition
was obtained. The results revealed a trend towards
significance for the control subjects [R = .36, Beta = -
4.66, T( 1,22) = -1.80, P = .085] The correlation between
SCR and arousal was not significant for the LHD group [R =
.11, Beta = 1.18, T(l,10) = .343, P = .7390] or the RHD
group [R = .287, Beta = -1.04, T = -.899, P = .3923].
In sum, subjects had a greater percentage of responses
in response to the shock tone than in response to the
control tone. Also, the results revealed that the RHD and
LHD subjects did not have significantly fewer responses than


Heart Rate (Beats per Minute)
No-Reward
1 Reward
Figure C-4 Heart Rate Change Scores in NCs during Reward Task
209


43
and midbrain reticular formation. (Rinn, 1984). Although
the pathways of voluntary and involuntary emotions are
different, the measurement of facial expressions are the
same regardless of the volitional quality of the expression.
Detailed facial coding systems, such as Ekman's FACS
(Ekman & Friesen, 1978) and Izard's MAX (1978) have been
used to measure minute muscle movements of the face.
Because these rating systems are quite time intensive and
because spontaneous facial muscle activity is often brief
and too small to be observed overtly, facial
electromyography (EMG) has sometimes been used to measure
subtle changes in muscle movements. The most common facial
muscle regions measured using EMG are the corrugator
supercilli (brow) and zygomatic major (cheek) muscles
regions. Various methods have been used to induce emotional
states while EMG of the corrugator and zygomatic muscles
have been measured. These emotion eliciting procedures have
included imagery, viewing affective slides, self-referential
statements, and self-disclosing interview. Consequently,
the facial expressions that accompany these emotion
induction procedures involve involuntary/spontaneous facial
movements. The UMN innervation of the corrugator muscle is
bilateral, whereas the UMN innervation of the zygomatic is
contralateral (Rinn, 1984). Thus, muscle activity in the
left and right corrugator regions cannot be activated


22
or the ability to judge similarity between two emotional
words (Etcoff, 1984).
However, recent evidence contradicts these findings.
Borod et al. (1992) found that, when compared to LHD and NHD
patients, RHD patients were more impaired in identifying and
discriminating emotional words and sentences. In addition,
RHD patients were impaired in their understanding of
emotionality in complex narratives (Gardner, Brownell,
Wapner, & Michelon, 1983; Gardner, Ling, Flam, & Silverman,
1975; Brownell, Michelon, Powelson, & Gardner, 1983). The
deficits of RHD patients in understanding complex narratives
may not be related to emotion, but to difficulties of RHD
patients in drawing inferences, reasoning, and interpreting
figures of speech (Heilman, Bowers, & Valenstein, in press).
However, this explanation does not explain the results of
Borod et al. (1992) who found that RHD were impaired in
identifying and discriminating words and short sentences.
Taken together, the above studies indicate that
patients with RHD have more difficulty than LHD patients and
NHD controls in evaluating nonverbal signals of emotion,
including facial expressions, emotional prosody, and verbal
messages of emotions. Moreover, RHD patients are equally
impaired for both positive and negative emotional signals.
Although some deficits in recognition of facial expressions
in RHD patients are related to general dysfunction in
visuospatial ability, others are apparently independent of


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Beth S. Slomine was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
on November 19, 1967. She attended the University of
Delaware from 1985 to 1989, where she obtained a bachelor's
degree with a major in psychology and a minor in biology,
graduating magna cum laude. In 1989, Beth began the
doctoral program in clinical psychology at University of
Florida. After obtaining her master's degree in May, 1992,
she began working towards her doctoral degree. She is
currently completing her predoctoral internship at the
Brockton VA in Massachusetts. After obtaining her Ph.D.,
Beth will be returning to the Philadelphia area to pursue a
postdoctoral fellowhip in geropsychology at the Philadelphia
Geriatric Center.
263


17
right hemisphere is involved in interpreting emotional
stimuli and has a unique relationship to subcortical
structures which mediate cerebral arousal and activation
(e.g., Heilman, Watson, & Bowers, 1983). Consequently,
damage in the right hemisphere interferes with processing
emotional stimuli, programs of expressive behavior, and
cerebral arousal and activation. In contrast, the bivalent
view of emotion posits that the anterior portion of the
right hemisphere is dominant for negative/avoidance emotions
and the anterior region of the left hemisphere is dominant
for positive/approach emotions (e.g., Fox & Davidson, 1984).
According to the bivalent view, right hemisphere damage
causes positive/approach affect and left hemisphere damage
evokes negative/avoidance affect. Both models and the
empirical research in support of each are discussed below.
Global Theory of Emotion
According to the global right hemisphere model,
observations of emotional indifference in RHD patients can
be explained by the right hemisphere's specialization for
coding nonverbal affective signals and mediating arousal and
activation (Heilman et al., 1983). The global right
hemisphere theory is supported by research exploring
emotional evaluation, expression, and arousal/activation,
which has revealed that RHD patients are deficient in
interpretation of emotional stimuli, are emotionally


100
Due to the large amount of variance in the percentage
of responses between subjects, arcsin transformations were
used and the data was reanalyzed. Using the transformed
data, the main effect for group, main effect of tone, and
the interaction remained significant.
Repeated Measures Analyses of Variance were used to
analyze the recoded range corrected skin conductance
responses (SCR). As mentioned in the data reduction
section, the range corrected SCR was corrected by denoting
the largest response for each subject as 100%. Each of the
smaller responses for that subject was recoded as a
percentage of the largest response. The data was recoded by
changing all trials in which the actual SCR was less than
.02 micro sieman to 0%. The between subjects factor was
group (LH, LH NCS, RH, RH NCS) and the within subject
factors were condition (shock and no-shock) and block (1 to
4) .
Examination of the recoded range corrected skin
conductance responses (SCR) for the anticipatory shock task
revealed main effects for group [F(3,43) = 2.99, P < .05] ,
block [F(3,43) = 14.05, P < .001], and condition [F(l,43) =
23.36, P c.001] There were also significant interactions
between condition and group [F(3,43) = 6.60, P < .001] and
block and condition [F(3,43) = 3.83, P < .05]. The ANOVA
table, Table C-25, is presented Appendix C.


19
documented dissociations between performance on
visuoperceptual facial recognition and performance on
affective facial expression recognition (Dekosky et al. ,
1980). Third, Elonder et al. (1992) found that RHD patients
were impaired relative to LHD patients and NHD controls in
identifying emotion associated with a verbal description of
a non-verbal signal, i.e., he scowled. Similar results
were found in RHD patients compared to LHD patients and
normal controls when asked to imagine facial expressions
(Bowers, Blonder, Feinberg, & Heilman, 1991). Because these
nonverbal affect signals were verbally described, poor
performance of the RHD group could not be attributed to
perceptual impairment.
Taken together, these studies suggest that there are
specific subsystems for processing affective facial stimuli.
This evidence is comparable to findings in the animal
literature. Using single cell recordings, neuroscientists
have identified visual neurons in the temporal cortex and
amygdala of monkeys that responded selectively to faces and
to facial expressions (Perret et al., 1984; Leonard, Rolls,
& Wilson, 1985).
In addition zo deficits in comprehension of emotional
faces, many patients with RHD also have impairments in
understanding emocional prosody. For example, many patients
with RHD have difficulty identifying emotional prosody,
which includes the pitch, tempo and rhythm of speech.


112
In sum, there were no differences in the percentages of
responses greater than .02 micro sieman for the reward
versus control trials or between groups. In general, there
were no significant differences in subjects responses during
block 1, 2, 3, and 4. Additionally, responses were greater,
however, after no-reward trials compared to the reward
trials during block 1. There were no differences in the
amount of responding between the reward and no-reward for
blocks 2, 3, and 4. There were also no group differences
detected in SCR magnitude.
Facial electromyography(EMG). Ipsilateral corrugator
EMG (CEMG), left zygomatic EMG (ZGL), and right zygomatic
EMG (ZGR) were analyzed separately. Repeated measures
analyses of variance were employed. Group was the between
subject factor (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS), while block (one
to four) and tone (high and low) were the within subject
factors. There were no significant differences found for
any of the facial muscle variables during reward condition.
A means table reporting means for each variable by group is
presented below. The three ANOVA tables, Tables C-48, C-49,
and C-50, are presented in Appendix C. There were no
significant main effects or interactions in the analyses of
CEMG, ZGL, and ZGR. The ANOVAs were also employed using
logarithmic transformations of the data. The transfomed
data did not change the results in any way.


40
decreased sensitivity of incoming stimuli. The Laceys
hypothesized the reverse pattern. In their thorough review
of the literature, Graham and Clifton concluded that, in
fact, the Laceys hypotheses have been supported in that HR
deceleration is associated with orienting and HR
acceleration is associated with defensive responding.
A large body of research exists in which the autonomic
correlates of affective states have been investigated.
Throughout the second half of this century, researchers have
systematically explored the relationship between emotion and
psychophysiological measures including skin conductance and
heart rate. Early studies of systematic desensitization in
phobic patients revealed that as the subjects imagined more
fearful images, HR and skin conductance responses (SCR)
increased (Lang, Melamad, & Hart, 1970) .
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, a series of studies
by Hare and colleagues indicated that slides of mutilated
bodies evoked HR deceleration, an orienting response (OR).
These results were initially confusing because it had been
hypothesized that the slides would evoke fear and HR
acceleration, a defense response (DR). Upon reanalyzing his
data (Hare, 1972), it was found that some subjects had
consistently reacted with HR acceleration, some with marked
deceleration, and some with moderate deceleration.
Subsequently, researchers explored the differing
reactions of phobics and nonphobics in response to affective


257
Moreno, C. R., Borod, J., Welkowitz, J., & Alpert, M.
(1990). Lateralization for the expression and
perception of facial emotion as a function of age.
Neuropsvchologia. 28, 191-209.
Morris, M., Bowers, D., Verfaellie, M., Blonder, L., Cimino,
C., Bauer, R. M., & Heilman, K. M. (1992). Lexical
denotation and connotation in right and left hemisphere
damaged patients. Paper presented at meeting of
International Neuropsychological Society, San Diego.
Morris, M. K., Bradley, M., Bowers, D., Lang, P. J.,
Heilman, K. M. (1991) Valence specific
hvpoarousal following right temporal lobectomy.
Presented at the meeting of the International
Neuropsychological Society, San Antonio, TX.
Morrow, L. Vrtunski, P. B., Kim, Y., Boiler, F. (1981).
Arousal responses to emotional stimuli and laterality
of lesions. Neuropsvchologia. 19, 65-71.
Notterman, J. M., Schoenfeld, W. N., & Bersh, P. J. (1952).
Conditioned heart rate response in human beings during
experimental anxiety. Journal of Comparative and
Physiological Psychology, 45. 1-8.
OsGood, C. E. (1966). Dimensionality of the semantic space
for communication via facial expressions. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 7, 1-30.
Papez, J. W. (1937). A proposed mechanism of emotion.
Achieves of Neurology and Psychiatry. 38, 725-743.
Patrick, C. J., & Berthot, B. D. (1995). Psychophysiology.
32, 72-80.
Patrick, C. J., Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1991) Emotion
in the Criminal Psychopath: Startle Reflex Modulation.
Submitted for publication.
Perret, D., Smith, P., Potter, D., Mislin, A., Head, A.,
Milner, A. (1984). Neurons responsive to faces in the
temporal cortex: Studies of functional organization,
sensitivity to identity and relation to perception.
Human Neurobiology. 3., 197-204.
Petry, H. M. & Desiderato, O. (1978). Changes in heart rate,
muscle activity, and anxiety level following shock
threat. Psychophysiology, 15., 398-402.


247
Borod, J. C., Andelman, F., Obler, L. K., Tweedy, J. R., &
Welkowitz, J. (1992) Right hemisphere specialization
for the identification of emotional words and
sentences: Evidence from stroke patients.
Neuropsychologia.
Borod, J. & Koff, E. (1990). Lateralization for facial
emotion behavior: A methodological perspective.
International Journal of Psychology. 25, 157-177.
Borod, J., Koff, E., Lorch, M., & Nicholas, M. (1985).
Channels of emotional expression in patients with
unilateral brain damage. Archives of Neurology. 42.
345-348 .
Borod, J., Koff, E., Perlman-Lorch, J., Nicolas, M. (1986).
The expression and perception of facial emotions in
brain damaged patients. Neuropsvcholooia. 24., 169-180.
Borod, J. Koff, E., Perlman-Lorch, M., Nicolas, M., &
Welkowitz, J. (1988). Emotional and nonemotional facial
behavior in patients with unilateral brain damage.
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 51,
826-832.
Borod, J. C., Koff, E., & White, B. (1983). Facial asymmetry
in spontaneous and posed expressions of emotion. Brain
and Cognition, 2, 165-175.
Bowers, D., Bauer, R. M., Coslett, H. B., & Heilman, K. M.
(1985). Processing of faces by patients with unilateral
hemispheric lesions. Dissociation between judgements of
facial affect and facial identity. Brain and Cognition,
4, 258-272.
Bowers, D, Blonder, L. X., Feinberg, T., & Heilman, K. M.
(1991). Differential impact of right and left
hemisphere lesions on facial emotion and object
imagery. Brain. 114, 1-17.
Bowers, D., Coslett, H. B., Bauer, R. M., Speedie, L. J.,
Heilman, K. M. (1987) Comprehension of emotional
prosody following unilateral hemispheric lesions:
Processing defect vs. distraction defect.
Neuropsvchologia. 25. 317-328.
Bowers, K. S. (1971a). The effects of UCS temporal
uncertainty on heart rate and pain.
Psychophysiology, 8, 382-389.


21
authors concluded that affective prosody is a multifaceted
process which cannot simply be explained by differences in
hemispheric specialization.
Studies of normals using dichotic listening tasks have
also been employed to explore hemispheric differences in
processing emotional prosody. In dichotic listening, two
different messages are simultaneously presented to the right
and left ears. Words were recalled best from the right ear
indicative of left hemisphere superiority (Kimura, 1967) ,
while mood of the speaker was recalled better from the left
ear, suggestive of right hemisphere superiority in
processing emotional prosody (Haggard & Parkinson, 1971; Ley
Sc Bryden, 1982) .
In contrast to the tasks involving nonverbal signals,
evidence for a unique role of the right hemisphere in
mediating emotional understanding of messages that are
conveyed through propositional language is equivocal.
Recognition of emotional words has been found to be better
when presented tachistoscopically to the right hemisphere
(Graves, Landis, & Goodglass, 1981). However, RHD and LHD
patients did not differ in the ability to comprehend the
meaning of emotional and nonemotional words (Morris et al.,
1992), the ability to identify emotionality of short
propositional sentences (Heilman et al., 1984; Cicone,
Wapner, & Gardner, 1980; Blonder, Bowers, Sc Heilman, 1991),


41
slides. The findings indicated that presentation of a
feared object resulted in initial HR acceleration, e.g.,
(DR), while presentation of a nonfeared object results in HR
deceleration, e.g., (OR) (Hare, 1973; Klorman, Weissberg, &
Wiesenfeld, 1977; Klorman, Wiesenfeld & Austin, 1975) .
Additionally, SCR was elevated with the presentation of
fearful stimuli (e.g., Klorman, Weissberg, & Wiesenfeld,
1977) and, in some studies, the amount of elevation was
higher for phobics (Klorman, Wiesenfeld & Austin, 1975).
Imagery has also been used to evoke emotional states.
It is important to note that during imagery, autonomic
responsivity (i.e., HR and SCR) is influenced not only by
the affective state, but also by other factors such as
imagery instructions and the subjects' ability to image
(Lang, Kozak, Miller, & Levin, 1980; Miller, Levin, Kozak,
Cook, McLean, & Lang, 1987. Vrana, Cuthbert, and Lang
(1986) found that normal subjects verbally reported
experiencing more arousal, more unpleasantness, and less
control during fear imagery than during neutral imagery.
Fear images also evoked HR acceleration which lasted over a
10 second period. In contrast, neutral images produced
acceleration followed by deceleration. Thus, HR and
subjective report distinguished fearful from neutral
imagery.
Taken together, the results of these studies are
consistent with the views of Graham and Clifton (1966) and


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E2HQ406O7_JKH2PD INGEST_TIME 2012-12-07T22:13:38Z PACKAGE AA00012895_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES


89
rate. Additionally, one subject was removed from the skin
conductance analysis due to faulty electrode connections.
Heart rate
Average heart rate change from baseline was examined
using a Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with
group (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS) as the between subject
factor and tone (low, high) as the within subject factor.
The low tone was the novel tone. The main effect for group
[F(3,43) = .419, P = .740], tone [F(l,43) = 1.634, P =
.208], and the interaction between group and tone [F(3,43) =
.218, P = .884] were all nonsignificant. See Table C-l in
Appendix C.
A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
employed to examine D1 using group as the between subject
factor (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS) and tone (high, low) and
block (1 to 8) as the within subject factors. Results
revealed a main effect for tone [F(l,43) = 8.63, P < .01]
such that there was a greater D1 for the low tone (the novel
tone) compared to the high tone (the repeated tone). The
mean D1 for the low tone was -3.4 (sd=4.40) bpm change from
baseline whereas the mean D1 for the high tone was -2.5
(sd=3.82) bpm change from baseline. None of the other
effects were significant. See Table C-2, the full ANOVA
table, in Appendix C.


140
Within the LHD group, one subject had a minimal change
in rated emotional experience (1 point change in combined
valence, arousal, and dominance). This subject also was one
of the non-responders.
Subject L7
Examination of the LHD subjects revealed that one
individual, L7, had much greater percentage of SCRs and
higher SCR magnitude compared to the other LHD subjects. L7
was the youngest of the LHD group. L7 was also the subject
who had SCR measured on the right hand because his left arm
had been amputated. As mentioned above, it was decided to
include this subject in the analyses because recent evidence
suggests that there are no differences in bilateral SCR
measurements in brain damaged subjects (Tranel & Damasio,
1994) .
To examine the influence of L7 on the overall SCR
magnitude analyses, L7 was removed and the magnitude
analyses were conducted again. T-tests were used to explore
the tone by group interaction, using a Bonferroni correction
of p < .008. The results revealed that along with the RHD
group, the LHD group also had significantly smaller
responding than the LH NCS [T(l,21) = -3.43, P < .008] and
RH NCS [T(l,21) = -3.08, P < .008] during the shock
condition. As in the above analyses, there are no
significant group differences during the no-shock condition.
Thus, when L7 is removed from the analyses, the LHD group


216
Table C-45 ANOVA Table of Recoded Range Corrected SCR during the
Reward Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
1587.75565
3
529.25188
.6911
. 5625
Subject(Group)
32929.5129
43
765.80263
Block
872.80795
3
290.93598
2.841
. 0405
Block by Group
367.05610
9
40.78401
.3983
. 9340
Block by
Subject(Group)
13210.1142
129
102.40399
Tone
38.93401
1
38.93401
.4692
.4970
Tone by Group
49.28116
3
16.42705
.1980
.8972
Tone by
Subject(Group)
3568.1784
43
82.98089
Block by Tone
839.36650
3
279.7888
3.316
. 0221
Block by Tone by
Group
590.95788
9
65.66199
. 7781
.6369
Block by Tone by
Subject(Group)
10886.243
129
84.38948


27
was delivered to the forearm ipsilateral to the lesion in
RHD, LHD, and NH patients. The RHD group had smaller SCRs
than either the LHD or NH groups. Also, the LHD group had a
higher SCR than the normal group.
Cardiovascular activity has also been examined in
patients with LHD and RHD. Yokoyama, Jennings, Ackles,
Hood, and Boiler (1987) examined RHD, LHD, and NC patients
using a reaction time task, while HR interbeat intervals
were obtained. The controls and LHD subjects displayed
anticipatory deceleration, followed by postresponse
acceleration. The HR responding of the RHD patients varied
little during anticipation and postresponse.
To sum, emotional slides evoke smaller SCR or less
arousal, in right hemisphere damaged patients compared to
NHD and LHD patients. Moreover, one study only found this
distinction in patients with right parietal lesions.
Additionally, in some studies, LHD patients responded with
accentuated SCRs, (i.e., greater arousal), in response to
emotional slides. Similar findings of decreased SCRs in RHD
patients and increased SCR in LHD patients have been
obtained in response to mildly noxious stimuli. Also,
patients with RHD have attenuated HR reactivity in response
to a reaction time task. Taken together, it appears that
RHD patients are hypoaroused and LHD patients may be
hyperaroused in response to emotional, painful, or
attention-demanding stimuli.


240
Table C-75 Kruskal-Wallis Tests of SAM Ratings during Shock Task
of Experiment Two
Corrected for Ties
Chi-
Square
Significance
Chi-
Square
Significance
Valence
(Shock)
1.0028
. 8006
1.0581
. 7872
Valence
(Control)
2.5091
.4736
3.2613
.3531
Arousal
(Shock)
1.4768
. 6876
1.6324
. 6521
Arousal
(Control)
5.2128
. 1569
8.6035
. 0351
Dominance
(Shock)
4.1869
. 2420
5.9760
. 1128
Dominance
(Control)
1.2881
. 7320
-
3.0704
.3809


117
Repeated measures analyses of variance were used to
analyze these new variables. Group was again the between
subject factor and task (shock minus shock-control and
reward minus reward-control). The full ANOVA table, Table
C-56, is presented in Appendix C.
The results revealed a main effect for group [F(3,43) =
6.534, P < .01 and task [F(l,43) = 16.499, P < .001]. The
interaction of group by task approached significance
[F(3,43) = 2.814, P = .0504].
Because the LH NCS and RH NCS were not significantly
different from one another [T(l,22) = -1.034, P = .3125],
these groups were combined. Exploration of the main effect
of group using independent t-tests with a Bonferroni
correction requiring a P < .017 for significance revealed
that the difference between the percentage of responses
between the control and stimulus trials was significantly
smaller for both the LHD group (mean=1.25, sd=5.49) [T(l,34)
= -2.86, P < .01] and the RHD group (mean=-.227, sd=3.25)
[T(l,33) = 3.28, P <.01] compared to the CONS (mean=10.83,
sd=10.88). There were no significant differences between
the two patient groups [T(l,21) = .776, P = .4465] A table
of the t-tests, Table C-57, is presented in Appendix C.
The main effect of task revealed that subjects had a
greater difference between the percentage of responses
during the shock compared to shock-control trials


237
Table C-71 ANCOVA Table of Percentage of SCR Responses comparing
Shock and Reward Tasks with Medication as a Covariate
ss.
DF
SS
F
Sig of
F
Within and
Residual (Group)
6045.49
42
143.94
Regression
17.95
1
17.95
. 12
.726
Group
2266.16
3
755.39
5.25
. 004
Within and
Residual (Tone)
5202.84
43
121.00
Tone
1996.37
1
1996.3
7
16.50
. 000
Tone by Group
1021.63
3
340.54
2.81
. 050


74
lower scores on information compared with the CONS, but not
the RHD subjects. There were no significant group
differences on the similarities subtest of the WAIS-R. Both
the LHD and RHD subjects had significantly decreased digit
span forward and backwards compared to the CONs.
Results of memory testing revealed that the LHD
subjects scores on immediate recall on Logical Memory were
significantly lower than controls. However, after a delay,
the RHD subjects had significantly poorer recall compared to
the CONs. On both Logical Memory I and II, there were no
differences between the LHD and RHD subjects. RHD subjects
performed worse on Visual Reproductions I and II compared
with CONs, but not LHD subjects.
Language testing revealed that the LHD subjects had
more difficulty with comprehension and had a lower overall
Aphasia Quiotent compared with CONs and RHD subjects.
All Ss were also administered the Florida Affect
Battery. Their results on this test are provided in Tables
B-12, B-13, B-14, and B-15 in Appendix B.
Experiment i: Psvchoohvsiological Arousal and Facial 5MG
during Anticipatory Anxiety and Anticipatory Reward in
Patients with RHD and LHD
This experiment consisted of two parts, an anticipatory
anxiety and an anticipatory reward task. In both, a two
stimulus paradigm was used whereby subjects were told that
one target tone would signal the occurrence of shock or
reward during the following 6 seconds, whereas a second


66
during shock trials, whereas RHD patients will exhibit
no differences.
4. During prize anticipation, the RHD will have greater or
equal ZEMG compared to the NHD group which will have
greater zygomatic EMG compared to LHD group. Relative
to no reward control trials, RHD and NHD subjects will
display increased zygomatic EMG during reward trials,
whereas LHD patients will show no differences.
Specific Predictions for Experiment 2: Subjective Report of
Emotion during Anticipatory Anxiety and Reward Tasks by RHD,
LHD, and NHD Patients
The hypotheses and predictions for this experiment are
similar in kind to those of Experiment 1.
Normal control group (NHD)
1. In line with previous research, it is expected that the
NHD group will report greater state anxiety during the
shock than no shock control trials.
2. Similarly, during prize anticipation, NHD group will
report more intense positive emotions than during the
no prize control trials
Focal lesion patients (RHD and LHD)
A) Global Right Hemisphere Emotion Model: The predictions
of this model are as follows:
1. During shock anticipation, the LHD and NHD groups will
report greater anxiety (based on state anxiety scores
on the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, dimensional


assisted me with my statistics and never got angry as she
showed me the same steps over and over again.
I would also like to thank the research assistants who
helped me with this project. Hillary Webb, Kim Roberts, and
Brian Howland all helped in heartrate reduction. I would
especially like to thank Scott Lebowitz who worked
diligently on many aspects of the project from subject
recruitment to data managment.
I would also like to thank those individuals and
organizations who helped me to find participants for this
study, including Beth McCauley; Anne Rottman, M.D.; Laura
Hodges, P.T.; Orlando Stroke Club, Golden Gators; and the
other seniors groups from local churches who allowed me to
recruit subjects through their organization. And, of
course, I would like to thank all of those individuals who
spent the many hours required to participate in this
project.
Lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends who
supported me and attempted to calm me down through all of my
catastrophizing over the last three years.
in


158
subjects, along with the normal controls reported the
expected changes in verbal report of emotion, it can not be
assumed that subjects perceived the emotional situation
accurately. At the end of each 10-trial block, the
experiment asked the subjects to rate their experiences by
asking "When you heard the high tone, and you knew you were
going to get a shock, how did you feel on this scale..."
Using this method, it is unclear whether subjects reporting
their actual subjective experiences during the situation or
whether they were reported what they are "expected" to feel.
Moreover, since the subjects were not required to
respond in any way, it is unclear whether they were able to
distinguish each tone on a trial by trial basis. However,
all subjects were able to distinguish the pairs of tones
before the onset of the experimental trials. Since subjects
were not required to respond in any way to insure that they
interpreted each anticipatory trial accurately, it is
unclear whether the LHD and RHD subjects clearly understood
the emotional context of the shock condition and reward
conditions. As a consequence, the decrease SCRs in the RHD
group and in most of the subjects from the LHD group, may be
reflective of their inability to perceive the situation
accurately on a trial by trial basis.
A second possiblity is that brain damage, in general,
causes a decrease in SCR during expected emotional arousal.
This explanation is unlikely in light of the previous


182
Table B-13 Performance of RH NCS on Florida Affect Battery
(percent correct by subtest)
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8a
8b
9
RC1
100
95
85
95
95
100
90
85
94/
50
65
RC2
100
85
90
100
95
94
100
100
88/
81
100
RC3
90
90
75
95
85
88
90
75
75/
69
75
RC4
95
85
100
100
95
100
100
100
100
/6 9
100
RC5
100
90
70
95
85
100
100
95
94/
63
90
RC6
95
75
75
100
85
100
100
90
94/
75
95
RC7
100
75
75
85
55
75
95
65
88/
50
60
RC8
100
90
95
95
90
100
100
85
94/
69
95
RC9
90
85
85
100
95
100
100
100
81/
75
90
RC10
100
80
65
100
85
94
90
55
88/
44
60
RC11
95
80
90
100
80
100
100
95
88/
69
90
RC12
100
65
80
90
95
100
100
95
81/
81
80


12
on two or three polar dimensions. Wundt (1896) suggested
that emotions can be conceptualized in terms of three
different dimensions: pleasantness-unpleasantness,
relaxation-tension, and calm-excitement. In addition, the
dimensional views of emotion were supported by Cannon's
(1927) claim that the same visceral changes occur in
different emotional states. Consequently, theorists such as
Duffy (1957) conceptualized emotions as varying along a
general state of activation or arousal. Other contemporary
investigators have used dimensions to characterize facial
expressions (e.g., Scholsberg, 1941; Osgood, 1966) and
verbal report (e.g., Russell & Mehrabian, 1977). Lang
(1985) stated that most variance within factor analytic
studies of the verbal report of emotional experience was
accounted for by two dimensions, activation (arousal-
quiescence) and valence (pleasure-displeasure). Because the
bidimensional view seems to neglect a certain amount of
variance, Lang proposed that the dimension termed dominance-
submission by Russell and Mehrabian (1977) may account for
the residual variance.
Similar to the view of the discrete emotions theorists,
Lang (1985) suggested that emotional behavior has developed
phylogenetically for basic survival tasks (e.g., searching
for food or fighting for territory). Further, Lang
hypothesized that the combination of valence (approach vs.
avoid), arousal (energy mobilization), and dominance


126
Shock versus reward tasks. Since the results of the
SCR data comparing the shock and reward conditions revealed
significant results, medications were also used as a
covariate in the analysis comparing the shock and reward
trials. A repeated measures analyses of covariance was
employed where group was the between subjects factor and
task (shock minus no-shock and reward minus no-reward) was
the within subject factor. When the percentage of responses
was examined, the main effect for group remained significant
[F(3,43) = 5.25, P < .01] As in the ANOVA, the interaction
by group and task approached significance [F(3,43) = 2.81, P
= .050. The ANCOVA table, Table C-71, is presented in
Appendix C.
A similar analysis was employed using recoded range
corrected SCR as the dependent variable. In this analysis
group was the between subjects factor and block (1 to 4) and
task (shock minus no-shock reward minus no-reward) were the
within subject factors. Again, the main effect for group
remained significant [F(3,42) = 3.82, P <.05.]. The
interaction between group and task also remained significant
[F(3,43) = 4.81, P < .01] Table C-72, in Appendix C,
depicts the results of this analysis. Appendix C.
Summary of medication effects. In sum, these analyses
suggest that the presence of medications that affect the ANS
does not account for the significant main effect of group
for the percentage of SCR responses. As stated above,


115
Direct comparison of the mean HR change during the
shock and reward conditions was also examined by employing a
repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVA) using group
(LH, LH NCS, RH, RH NCS) as the between subject factor and
condition (shock minus no-shock and reward minus no-reward)
as the within subject factor. There was no significant
difference within the two tasks [F(l,43) = .237, P = .629]
or between groups [F(3,43) = 1.060, P = .376]. The group by
task interaction was also not significant [F(3,43) = .400, P
=.754]. The mean bpm change from baseline for each group
are as follows: LHD mean=.032, sd=2.02; LH NCS mean=.343,
sd=.820; RHD mean=-.177, sd=2.012; RH NCS mean=.435,
sd=1.439). The ANOVA table, Table C-52, is presented in
Appendix C.
Heart rate Dl, A1, and D2 values for shock task were
compared to the values for reward task by subtracting the
control values from the stimulus values for each subject for
each trial block. These values were compared using a
repeated measures analysis of variance for each variable.
The between subject factor was group (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH
NCS) and the within subject factor was task (shock minus
shock-control and reward minus reward-control). There were
no significant differences between the shock and reward
conditions for any of the three variables. The ANOVA
tables, Table C-53, C-54, C-55, are presented in Appendix C.


230
Table C-63 T-Tests of Recoded Range Corrected SCR during Shock
Task
Mean
DF
T-value
P-value
Diff.
LHD,
CONS
-10.699
34
-2.809
. 0082
LHD,
RHD
1.608
21
. 721
.4790
RHD,
CONS
12.306
33
3.234
.0028
Table C-64 T-Tests of Recoded Range Corrected SCR during Reward
Tasks
Mean
Diff.
DF
T-value
P-value
LHD,
CONS
- .765
34
- .321
. 7503
LHD,
RHD
1.012
21
.592
. 5604
RHD,
CONS
1.777
33
.686
.4973


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


99
lower percentage of responses compared to the CONS or RHD
groups. See Table C-22 in Appendix C.
The main effect for condition indicated that subjects
had a greater percentage of SCR responses during the shock
(mean=30.31%, sd=31.00) compared to the no-shock condition
(mean=19.79, sd=25.43).
The condition by group interaction was explored using
independent t-tests with Bonferroni corrections. Groups
were compared to one another for both the shock and no-shock
conditions. Since there were no significant differences
between the two control groups during both the shock
condition [T(l,22) = -1.375, P = .1830] and the no-shock
condition [T(l,22) = -1.236, P = .2296], the LH NCS and RH
NCS were combined into one group. There were three
comparisons for each tone, the bonferroni correction changed
the significance level to .05/3=.017. Examination of the
group difference during the shock condition revealed that
the RHD group (mean=15.00%, sd=16.88) had a lower number of
responses above .02 micro sieman compared to the CONS
(mean=44.17%, sd=33.27), [T(33) = 2.734, P <.017], The LHD
group (mean=16.25%, sd=23.94) also had fewer responses than
the CONS [T(22) = -2.532, P <.017). Additionally, no
significant group differences were found in percent of
responding during the no-shock trials. The results of the
t-tests are presented fully in Tables C-23 and C-24 in
Appendix C.


37
Observations that RHD patients are autonomically
hypoaroused in response to affective scenes (relative to NHD
and LHD patients) have been interpreted as support for a
dominant role of the right hemisphere in emotional arousal.
However, this interpretation is not without question given
that such studies have generally measured autonomic
responsivity only in response to neutral and unpleasant
scenes (Meadows & Kaplan, 1992; Zoccolatti et al., 1982) or
situations (Heilman et al., 1978). Pleasant scenes or
stimulus materials have not been used in such studies and it
remains unknown whether stroke of the right hemisphere
equally attenuate autonomic reactivity to pleasant scenes.
In and of itself, the current existing data that RHD stroke
patients are hypoaroused to negative-affective scenes are
equally consistent with the bivalent as well as the global
right hemisphere model. Of relevance, Morris et al. (1991)
recently reported valence-specific hypoarousal in a patient
following a right temporal lobectomy. Skin conductance
responses were obtained to unpleasant (mutilations),
pleasant (attractive nudes), and neutral (breadbaskets)
slides. This patient showed abnormally reduced SCR to
unpleasant but normal SCR to pleasant and neutral slides, a
pattern of findings that is consistent with a bivalent
model. Had only unpleasant scenes been used in this study
one would not be able to logically distinguish between the
bivalent and global right hemisphere model. For this


29
conceptualized as approach emotions (Suberi & McKeever,
1977). Additionally, Reuter-Lorenz and Davidson (1981)
presented subjects with an emotional face and a neutral face
of the same individual simultaneously to each visual field.
Reaction times for identifying happy expressions were faster
during presentation to the right visual field (left
hemisphere) and faster for sad expressions when presented to
the left visual field (right hemisphere). However results
have not been consistently replicated (Duda & Brown, 1984;
McLaren & Bryson, 1987), and the vast majority of studies of
affect perception in normals or focal lesion patients failed
to demonstrate hemisphere-specific valence asymmetries.
Expression of emotion
Many studies of facial expressiveness have found that
the left side of the face is more expressive than the right.
These studies have been interpreted as reflecting a dominant
role of the right hemisphere in emotional expression
(Sackeim & Gur, 1978; Borod, Koff, & White, 1983; Campbell,
1978; Heller & Levy, 1981; Moreno, Borod, Welkowitz, &
Alpert, 1990). However, Schwartz, Ahern, and Brown (1979)
recorded bilateral corrugator and zygomatic EMG during a
mood induction task. They found that subjects expressed
positive emotions more intensely on the right side of the
face and negative emotions on the left side of the face.
However, the majority of research investigating emotional
expressivity in normals and patients with focal lesions


132
task (shock minus shock-control and reward minus reward-
control) as the within subject factor. For both positive
[F(l,43) = 6.40, P < .05] and negative affect factors
[F(l,43) = 8.64, P < .01], there was a main effect of task.
The main effect of group and task by group interactions were
not significant for either PA or NA. The main effect of
task for PA, revealed that subjects reported more positive
affect during the reward compared to the no-reward condition
(mean=3.13, sd=7.97) than the shock compared to the no-shock
condition (mean=.298, sd=7.97). Examination of the mean
differences between stimulus and control conditions for NA
indicated that subjects reported more negative affect during
shock compared to the no-shock condition (mean=1.00,
sd=2.26) and slightly less negative affect during the reward
compared to the no-reward condition (mean=-.085, sd=1.19).
The ANOVA tables for both PA and NA, Table C-80 and C-81,
are presented in Appendix C.
Self-assessment manikin. The shock and reward
conditions were directly compared for each variable by
creating new variables (shock minus no-shock and reward
minus no-reward) for valence, arousal, and dominance.
Wilcoxon Tests and Kruskal-Wallis Tests were performed to
examine differences in condition and group respectively.
The ratings for the shock condition were significantly
different than the ratings for the reward condition for
valence [Z = -4.22, P < .0001], arousal [-2.19, P < .05],


23
visuospatial ability. In part, some deficits in affective
prosody may be due to more elemental dysfunction in complex
auditory analysis. In contrast to nonverbal affective
signals, the role of the right hemisphere in processing
verbal emotional signals remains unclear. At present, some
argue that an emotional semantic network is widely
distributed between the hemispheres whereas other argue that
the RH may be dominant for emotional semantics.
Expression of emotion
The global right hemisphere view of emotion has also
been supported by investigations of deficits in expression
of emotion. Overall facial expressivity of emotions has
been evaluated in RHD, LHD, and NH controls. Some authors
have reported that RHD patients were less spontaneously
expressive than LHD and NH controls (Blonder, et al., 1991;
Borod, Koff, Lorch, & Nicholas, 1985; Borod, Koff, Perlman-
Lorch, & Nicholas, 1988; Buck & Duffy, 1980) However,
Weddell, Miller, and Trevartht_n (1990) found LHD and RHD
patients who had tumors were equally impaired and less
expressive than NHD controls. When excisions occurred or
tumor and CVA patients were combined, RHD and LHD patients
did not significantly differ from controls (Kolb & Milner,
1981; Mammacuri, et al. 1988). Additionally, re --nt
evidence exists from studies using a carefully delineated
facial scoring system which contradicts the findings that
RHD patients are less facially expressive. For example, no


Heart Rate (Beats per Minute)
0.4
Time (Half Seconds)
Figure C-1 Heart Rate Change Scores in NCs during Shock Task
188


113
Table 4-6 Means and Standard Deviations of the Change
Scores for Facial EMG during Reward Condition
CEMG
ZGL
ZGR
LHD
. 013
(.058)
-.034 (.093)
-.013 (.058)
LH NCS
. 032
(.066)
.025 (.103)
.016 (.082)
RHD
. 041
(.229)
.016 (.067)
-.015 (.123)
RH NCS
- 023
(.107)
.038 (.127)
.006 (.056)
Self-assessment manikin. As with the shock condition,
the self-report of valence, arousal, and dominance were
analyzed using nonparametric statistics.
Within the reward condition, Wilcoxon Tests for paired
samples revealed that there was a significant difference
between the reward and control trials for valence [Z = -
5.31, P < .0001] which demonstrated that subjects reported
more pleasant feelings during the reward (mean=1.25,
sd=.562) compared to the reward-control (mean=2.90, sd=1.43)
trials. There was also a main effect of tone for arousal [Z
= -2.71, P < .01]. Subjects reported more arousal during
reward (mean=3.74, sd=1.32) compared to the reward-control
(mean=4.08, sd=1.08) trials. The main effect of tone for
dominance [Z = -2.52, P < .05] revealed that subjects
reported feeling more in control during the reward
(mean=4.55, sd=.916) compared to the reward-control
(mean=4.33, sd=1.07) trials.
Kruskal-Wallis Tests demonstrated that there were no
group differences for any of the variables during both the


65
shock and no shock trials. During prize anticipation,
RHD subjects will have greater or similar HR responding
compared to normal controls, whereas LHD patients will
have smaller HR responding relative to NHD patients.
Also, RHD and NHD groups will display greater HR
responding during prize relative to no reward control
trials, whereas LHD patients will not differ between
prize and no prize trials.
2. During shock anticipation, the LHD patients will have
greater or similar SCR compared to NHD controls and RHD
patients will have smaller SCR compared to NHD
controls. Also, LHD and NHD subjects will have greater
SCR during shock compared to no shock trials, whereas
SCR will not differ between shock and no shock trials
in RHD patients. During prize anticipation, however,
RHD patients will have greater SCR than NHD patients,
while the LHD patients will have smaller SCR than NHD
subjects. Similarly, RHD and NHD patients will have
greater SCR during prize compared to no prize trials,
whereas SCR will not differ between prize and no reward
trials in LHD patients.
3. During shock anticipation, the RHD subjects will have
smaller CEMG compared to NHD patients, while the LHD
group will have greater or equal corrugator EMG
compared to NHD patients. Compared to control trials,
LHD and NHD groups will show accentuated corrugator EMG


229
Table C-61 T-Tests of Group Differences in Recoded Range Corrected
SCR during Shock and Reward Tasks Combined
Mean
Diff.
DF
T-value
P-value
LHD,
CONS
-5.732
34
-2.285
. 0287
LHD,
RHD
1.310
21
1.029
.3154
RHD,
CONS
7.042
33
2.733
. 0100
Table C-62 T-Tests of Block Differences in Recoded Range Corrected
SCR comparing the Shock and Reward Tasks
Mean
Diff.
DF
T-Value
P-Value
Shock
Blockl,
17.027
46
4.724
<.0001
Reward
Blockl
Shock
Block 2,
3.712
46
1.586
. 1195
Reward
Block 2
Shock
Block 3,
1.065
46
.433
.6671
Reward
Block 3
Shock
Block 4,
7.961
46
2.925
. 0053
Reward
Block 4


92
Shock task
As mentioned above, subjects received the shock in the
forearm ipsilateral to their lesions. Additionally, RH NCS
and LH NCS received the shock on their right and left arms
respectively. Subjects were asked to determine the level of
shock that was "uncomfortable, but not painful." The level
of shock chosen by the subjects was examined using a 1
factor ANOVA with group (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS) as the
between subject factor. There were no group differences in
the voltage of shock chosen [F(3,44) = 1.79, P = .1622] .
The means and standard deviations for each group in volts
are as follows: LHD group (mean=68.75, sd=14.79), LH NCS
(mean=57.08, sd=12.70), RHD group (mean=64.17, sd=12.58), RH
NCS (mean=64.58, 9.40). The ANOVA table is presented below.
Table 4-1 ANOVA Table of Amount of Shock
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig
of F
Group
843.229
3
281.07
1.79
. 1622
Residual
6893.750
44
156.67
Heart rate. A series of separate analyses were
conducted to examine several heart rate variables. These
included overall heart rate change from baseline, D1 (the
greatest deceleration within the first 3-seconds after tone
offset), A1 (the greatest acceleration following D1 within
the 6-second period), and D2 (the greatest deceleration


231
Table C-65 ANOVA Table of Corrugator EMG compairng Shock and
Reward Tasks
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig of
F
Group
. 1982
3
. 066
. 7044
. 5545
Subject(Group)
4.128
44
.094
Condition
. 009
1
. 009
. 3418
. 5618
Condition by
Group
. 051
3
. 017
. 6437
. 5911
Condition by
Subject(Group)
1.159
44
. 026
Block
. 035
3
. 012
. 1982
.8975
Block by Group
.786
9
. 087
1.486
. 1535
Block by
Subject(Group)
7.761
132
. 059
Condition by
Block
. 146
3
. 049
.8974
.4445
Condition by
Block by Group
.433
9
. 048
. 8854
. 5402
Condition by
Block by
Subject(Group)
7.164
132
. 054


197
Table C-16 ANOVA Table of Block 1 of D2 during the Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig of
F
Group
7.390
3
2.463
. 9224
.4381
Residual
114.833
43
2.671
Table C-17 ANOVA Table of Block 2 of D2 during the Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig of
F
Group
32.772
3
10.924
5.557
. 0026
Residual
84.522
43
1.966
Table C-18 ANOVA Table of Block 3 of D2 during the Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig of
F
Group
4.335
3
1.445
. 7053
. 5541
Residual
88.092
43
2.049
Table C-19 ANOVA Table of Block 4 of D2 during the Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig of
F
Group
5.377
3
1.792
. 9452
.4272
Residual
81.541
43
1.896


16
euphoric. Others have reported similar observations (Denny-
Brown, Meyer, & Horenstein, 1952). Denny-Brown et al.
described a 55 year old woman with a right parietal infarct,
who appeared "indifferent" towards her illness as well as
apathetic towards her family's affairs. By contrast,
individuals with left hemisphere dysfunction (LHD) have been
observed to appear depressed, which was termed "catastrophic
reaction" by Goldstein (1948) Terzian (1964) noted that
injection of sodium amytal into the left carotid artery,
which inactivated the left hemisphere, was associated with a
depressive reaction, whereas injection of sodium amytal into
the right carotid artery was associated with an euphoric
reaction. More systematic large-scale studies of RHD and
LHD patients have been consistent with the early clinical
reports. Gainotti (1972) investigated the verbal
expressions and behavior of 160 patients with left and right
hemisphere lesions. Behaviors indicative of catastrophic
reactions or anxious-depressive mood were more frequent
among LHD patients, while indifference reactions were more
prevalent among RHD patients. Observations of post-stroke
mood changes has generated a large body of research over the
past 20 years in an attempt to understand the contributions
of the left and right hemispheres to emotion.
Two prominent theories of hemispheric differences in
emotion have arisen from the clinical studies reported
above. According to the global right hemisphere view, the


CHAPTER 2
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The purpose of the present study was to broadly examine
emotional responsivity of RHD and LHD patients in affect-
evoking situations and determine whether the pattern of
responses obtained from these patients was more in line with
predictions of a global right hemisphere model versus a
bivalent hemisphere emotion model. To examine this verbal
report, autonomic measures of arousal (SCR, HR), and indices
of facial muscle movement (EMG) were be collected in
situations that are known to elicit negative (anticipation
of shock) and positive responses (anticipation of reward) in
normals.
To date, few neuropsychological studies of emotion with
focal lesion patients have concurrently investigated more
than one component of emotional responsivity. That is,
either autonomic indices have been obtained (Heilman,
Schwartz, & Watson, 1978) or verbal report of mood states
have been obtained (Robinson & Price, 1982) No study to
date has used facial EMG to examine emotional responsivity
in focal lesion patients. Facial EMG may potentially be a
useful tool in that it has been shown to be sensitive to
56


59
diminished autonomic responsivity and less intense reports
of emotional experience in the anticipatory anxiety task
relative to the anticipatory reward task, whereas the LHD
group would show the opposite pattern.
Overview of Experimental Design
Patients with RHD, LHD, and NHD participated in two
experiments. Both experiments consisted of two parts, an
anticipatory anxiety task and an anticipatory reward task.
In the first experiment, a two-stimulus paradigm (see Vrana,
Cuthbert, & Lang, 1989) was used in both the anticipatory
anxiety and anticipatory reward tasks. Specifically, one
warning tone signaled that the subject would receive shock
stimulation during the subsequent six seconds, whereas the
other tone signaled that shock would not occur. Prior to
the beginning of the task, subjects learned which tone would
be associated with shock and which with no shock. An
analogous two-stimulus paradigm was used in the anticipatory
reward task. Psychophysiological measures of arousal (HR,
SCR) and facial EMG (ccrrugator and zygomatic) were obtained
during the six second anticipatory interval.
In the second experiment, a slightly different paradigm
was used to examine anticipatory anxiety and reward in RHD
and LHD patients. Specifically, there was a 5 minute
interval (versus 6 seconds in Experiment 1) during which the
subject awaited shock (or reward). Five-minute control
trials were also be given in which the subject is told that


135
posterior group had lesions that had been classified as
posterior, primarily posterior, or mixed (including areas 39
and 40). Due to the small number of subjects within each
group, descriptive information, rather than statistic
analyses are presented. The descriptive information is
depicted in Table 4-12.
Table 4-12 Means and Standard Deviations for Anterior and
Posterior Groups during the Shock Task
Lesion
%SCR
SCR
Shock
No-
Shock
Shock
No-
Shock
LHD
Pos.
20.63
20.00
11.74
9.53
n=8
(27.83)
(32.07)
(17.91)
(14.49)
Ant.
7.50
6.25
3.49
2.71
n=4
(11.90)
(12.50)
(7.61)
(7.49)
RHD
Pos.
6.25
3.75
2.95
2.37
n=6
(12.50)
(9.75)
(8.24)
(5.76)
Ant.
19.17
15.00
5.84
6.12
n=5
(19.34)
(23.24)
(6.92)
(10.71)
Both
Pos.
15.83
14.58
8.81
7.14
n=14
(24.20)
(27.09)
(15.84)
(12.68)
Ant.
14.50
11.50
3.97
2.60
n=9
(17.07)
(19.30)
(6.99)
(7.05)
Percentage of Responses
LHD subjects with posterior lesions appeared to have a
greater number of SCR responses. The reverse trend was
observed in the RHD group such that patients with anterior
lesions had a greater percentage of SCRs compared to
patients with posterior lesions. Of note, relative to the
differences between the anterior versus poster-or groups


198
Table C-20 T-Tests of Group Differences in D2 during Block 2 of
the Shock Task
Group
Mean Diff.
DF
T-Value
P-Value
LHD,
CONS
-1.582
33
-3.263
. 0026
LHD,
RHD
-2.188
22
-3.273
. 0035
RHD,
CONS
- 605
33
-1.362
.1824
Table C-21 ANOVA Table of Percentage of SCR Responses during the
Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG of
F
Group
12897.72
3
4299.242
3.313
. 0287
Subject(Group)
55802.27
43
1297.727
Trial
2481.894
1
2481.894
29.524
. 0001
Trial by Group
1630.972
3
543.657
6.467
. 0010
Trial by
Subject(Group)
3614.773
43
84.064
Table C-22 T-Tests of Percentage of SCR during the Shock Task
Mean Diff.
DF
T-value
P-value
LHD,
CONS
-19.167
34
-1.944
. 0602
LHD,
RHD
2.652
21
.290
. 7744
RHD,
CONS
21.818
33
2.304
. 0276


CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
First, analyses of the heart rate and skin conductance
responding during the psychophysiological orienting
procedure are presented. Next, primary analyses for
Experiment 1 are presented for heart rate, skin conductance,
ipsilateral corrugator EMG, bilateral zygomatic EMG, and
verbal report ratings separately for the shock and reward
conditions. Third, the analyses of the verbal report data
from Experiment 2 are presented.
Following the analyses of group data, data from
anterior and posterior subgroups and individual cases are
examined.
Group Data
Psychophysiolcaical Screening
To review, the orienting, or physiological screening
procedure, consisted of an approximately 10 minutes period
where the subjects were instructed to sit quietly and listen
to tones. There were 8 block of three tones (24 tones
total). Two of every three tones were 1000 hz and one was
400 hz. Heart rate and skin conductances responding was
measured during the second before and six seconds following
presentation of each tone. One subject was removed from the
heart rate analyses due to unusually high and variable heart
88


51
physiological response patterning which results in a one-to-
one relationship with experience of emotional states. Thus,
it is necessary to investigate patterns of physiological
behavior over time in order to infer the presence of a
psychological phenomenon based on physiological responding
(Cacioppo Sc Tassinary, 1990) .
Critical Issues
As reviewed earlier, there are two opposing views of
how the cerebral hemispheres differ in their contributions
to emotional processing. However, the precise role played
by each hemisphere remains unclear. Some investigators have
proposed that the right hemisphere is globally involved in
all aspects of emotional processing including evaluation,
expression, activation, and experience of emotion (Heilman
et al. 1985) Others researchers have suggested that each
hemisphere is specialized for a different type of emotion
(Fox Sc Davidson, 1984 ; Kinsbourne & Bemporad, 1984; Tucker,
1981; Heller, 1990). The mcst popular version of the
bivalent view is that the left hemisphere is dominant for-
positive/approach emotions, while the right hemisphere is
dominant for negative/avoidance emotions.
Along with differences in laterality of emotional
processing, investigators have speculated about differences
in emotional processing based on caudality, i.e., anterior
versus posterior regions of the brain. For example, studies
of interpretation of emotional information implicate the


232
Table C-66 ANOVA Table of Left-sided Zygomatic EMG compairng Shock
and Reward Tasks
SS '
DF
MS
F
Sig of
F
Group
. 054
3
. 018
. 5827
. 6295
Subject(Group)
1.372
44
. 031
Condition
. 001
1
. 001
. 0271
. 8700
Condition by
Group
. 051
3
. 017
.4874
. 6928
Condition by
Subject(Group)
1.530
44
. 035
Block
. 118
3
. 039
.7502
. 5241
Block by Group
. 167
9
. 019
.3546
. 9542
Block by
Subject(Group)
6.906
132
. 052
Condition by
Block
. 045
3
. 015
.3799
.7676
Condition by
Block by Group
.405
9
. 045
1.152
.3314
Condition by
Block by
Subject(Group)
5.157
132
.039


57
changes in the reported experience of valence in normal
individuals (Greenwald et al., 1989).
Further, those patient studies that have examined
psychophysiological indices of arousal in response to
emotional stimuli have typically used perceptual stimuli
(i.e., affective scenes) which must be accurately
"interpreted" in order to induce emotion. Patients with RHD
are known to have an array of visuoperceptual and
hemispatial attentional scanning difficulties which can
potentially interfere with their interpretation of such
stimuli. Consequently, findings that RHD patients are
autonomically hypoaroused in response to emotional scenes
may, in part, be secondary to difficulties in interpreting
these stimuli.
To avoid such confounding, the present study used "in
vivo" situations to elicit negative and positive emotions
among focal lesion patients. An anticipatory anxiety
paradigm adopted from Reiman et al. (1989) was used to
induce negative emotion (i.e., anxiety). In this paradigm,
subjects are told that they would sometimes receive a mild
shock. Findings with normals reveal changes in autonomic
arousal during the period that the subject is awaiting shock
in conjunction with self reports of increased levels of
anxiety (as measured by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory).
An anticipatory reward paradigm was used to induce positive
emotion. Here, subjects were told that they would sometimes


202
Table C-29 T-Tests of Recoded Range Corrected SCR during the No-
Shock Condition of the Shock Task
Mean
Diff
DF
T
P
LHD,
CONS
- 726
34
- .417
. 6792
LHD,
RHD
. 054
21
. 029
. 9775
RHD,
CONS
.780
33
.4815
. 6335
Table C-30 T-Tests of Recoded Range Corrected SCR during the NO-
No-Shock Condition of the Shock Task
Mean
Diff
DF
T
P
LHD,
CONS
-11.529
34
-2.152
. 0386
LHD,
RHD
3.840
21
. 919
.3685
RHD,
CONS
-15.834
33
3.099
. 0040


238
Table C-72 ANCOVA Table of Recoded Range Corrected SCR comparing
Shock and Reward Tasks with Medication as a Covariate
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig of
F
Within and
Residual (Group)
13749.50
42
327.37
Regression
92.04
1
92.04
.28
.599
Group
3748.05
3
1249.35
3.82
. 017
Within and
Residual (Block
by Group)
21210.09
129
164.42
Block
132.40
3
44.13
.27
. 848
Group by Block
586.50
9
65.17
.40
. 935
Within and
Residual (Tone by
Group)
8727.08
43
202.96
Tone
5038.05
1
5038.05
24.82
. 000
Group by Tone
2929.75
3
976.58
4.81
. 006
Within and
Residual (Block
by Tone by Group)
21552.83
129
167.08
Block by Tone
3415.53
3
1138.51
6.81
. 000
Group by Block by
Tone
1305.85
9
145.09
. 87
. 555


Table 3-10 Results of Neuropsychological Testing for LHD Group
WAIS-R
INFO
WAIS-R
SIM
DIGIT
SPAN
WMS-R
Orient
WMS-R LOG
MEM I 5c II
WMS-R VIS
REPRO I 5c II
NEGLECT
FACIAL
RECOGN
APHASIA
SCORE
L2
SS = 10
SS = 7
8/6
12
98/97
72/68
No
SEVERE
9.5/98
L3
SS = 7
SS = 7
3/0
14
6/8
60/46
Ext
WNL
8.2/86
L4
SS = 6
SS = 6
4/3
14
54/40
76/21
No
WNL
9.3/88.8
L5
SS = 1
SS = 2
4/3
NA
2/5
66/
Ext
MODERATE
7.65/69.5
L6
SS = 7
SS = 10
5/4
14
52/47
98/93
No
WNL
9.4/96.6
L7
SS = 12
SS = 13
7/4
14
59/85
88/80
No
WNL
10/100
L8
SS = 10
SS = 9
5/2
14
6/26
76/90
No
WNL
8.7/89.2
L9
SS = 12
SS = 10
8/4
14
98/92
66/46
No
WNL
9.5/94.2
LI 0
SS = 4
SS = 3
6/3
13
11/15
2/1
No
WNL
8.8/94.8
LI 1
SS = 4
SS = 4
5/3
13
17/26
2/8
No
MODERATE
9.95/95.5
L12
SS = 7
SS = 7
4/2
12
60/56
42/64
No
WNL
9.65/95.5
L13
SS = 7
SS = 6
4/4
14
40/64
88/42
No
WNL
9.95/95.9


186
Table C-2 ANOVA Table of D1 during Psychophysiological Screening
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
258.12
3
86.04
1.73
. 1760
Subject(Group)
2144.46
43
49.87
Tone
161.89
1
161.89
8.63
. 0053
Tone by Group
30.87
3
10.29
. 5482
. 6521
Tone by
Subject(Group)
807.04
43
18.77
Block
121.30
7
17.33
1.398
5
.2054
Block by Group
176.37
21
8.40
. 6778
. 8544
Block by
Subj ect(Group)
3729.46
301
12.39
Tone by Block
142.15
7
20.31
1.227
.2875
Tone by Block by
Group
330.67
21
15.74
. 9514
. 5246
Tone by Block by
Subject(Group)
4981.73
301
16.55


97
differences between groups for block one [F(3,43) = .922, P
= .438], block three [F(3,43) = .705, P = .554], and block
four [F(3,43) = .945, P = .427] However, a significant
difference was found between the groups at block two
[F(3,43) = 5.56, P < .01]. See the ANOVA tables in Appendix
C, Tables C-16, C-17, C-18, and C-19.
Further exploration of the group differences during
block 2, independent t-tests with a Bonferroni correction
revealed that the LHD patients has a significantly lower D2
than the CONS [T(1,33) = -3.26, P <. 01] and RHD [T(l,22) =
-3.27, P < .01 groups. The t-tests are presented in Table
C-20 in Appendix C.
To sum, overall HR did not differ between the shock and
control condition or between groups. Additionally, no
significant group, condition, or block differences were
revealed when examining A1. Examination of D1 revealed a
three way interaction, that upon further exploration yielded
no significant differences. One significant finding was
revealed in D2. Specifically, there was a significantly
greater D2 deceleration for the LHD group then the RHD group
and LH NCS during block 2 only.
Skin conductance. Skin conductance was examined by
exploring the percentage of responses (responses greater
than .02 micro sieman) and recoded range corrected skin
conductance response magnitude (responses that were greater
than .02 micro sieman were corrected based on individual


In this study, emotional experience as measured by
autonomic responding, facial muscle activity, and verbal
report was examined in 12 patients with RHD, 12 patients
with LHD, and 24 normal control subjects (NCS) during
anticipation of shock and reward. Results revealed that
during the shock condition, RHD subjects displayed a deficit
in skin conductance responding compared with the NCS, but
not compared with the LHD subjects. None of autonomic or
facial muscle variables differentiated the reward from the
control condition during the reward task. These results are
discussed in light of the global and bivalent theories of
emotion as well as neuroanatomic correlates of electrodermal
activity.
Vll


144
Table 4-15 SC" and Verbal Report in NC Subjects
Shk
%SCR
No-S
%SCR
Shk
SCR
No-S
SCR
Val
Aro
Dom
RC1
85
50
48.31
15.05
3.5
-3.5
-1.5
RC2
10
5
8.87
1.43
2
-1
-1
RC3
0
0
0.00
0.00
1.5
- 5
0
RC4
45
40
9.97
14.89
3
-3.5
-3.5
RC5
95
55
42.17
16.63
1
1
0
RC6
100
40
61.58
9.13
4
-3.5
-3
RC7
45
40
16.56
7.66
3
-2.5
-1.5
RC8
95
80
49.11
27.22
0
-2
0
RC9
45
25
16.27
10.67
3.5
-2.5
- 5
RC10
25
5
11.12
.50
3
0
-1
RC11
70
35
26.92
7.89
. 5
0
0
RC12
25
15
7.08
1.58
. 5
. 5
0
LC1
15
10
10.11
4.78
2.5
-2.5
0
LC2
100
100
39.62
30.42
4
-3.5
0
LC3
10
0
8.81
0.00
3.5
-2.5
-2
LC4
70
25
18.45
8.18
2
-2
- 5
LC5
30
20
13.89
9.26
0
0
. 5
LC6
60
45
14.34
11.60
2
- 5
0
LC7
50
5
23.02
1.32
0
0
0
LC8
5
0
10.95
2.92
3
-3.5
0
LC9
40
20
20.54
7.41
1
-1
0
LC10
25
0
20.50
0.00
- 5
0
0
LC11
15
5
9.32
2.26
2.5
0
0
LC12
0
0
5.00
3.29
. 5
0
-1


225
Table C-55 ANOVA Table of D2 comparing Shock and Reward Tasks
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
58.169
3
19.390
1.373
.2639
Subject(Group)
607.428
43
14.126
Block
21.842
3
7.281
. 5564
. 6448
Block by Group
153.363
9
17.040
1.3021
.2419
Block by
Subject(Group)
1688.14
129
13.087
Condition
. 1089
1
. 109
. 0037
. 9517
Condition by Group
68.835
3
22.944
.7807
.5113
Condition by
Subject(Group)
1263.85
43
29.392
Block by Condition
20.387
3
6.796
. 6272
.5987
Block by Condition
by Group
50.065
9
5.563
. 5134
. 8627
Block by Condition
by Subject(Group)
1397.76
129
10.835


227
Table C-58 T-Tests of Percentage of Responses for Recoded Range
Corrected SCR during the Shock Task
Mean
Diff.
DF
T-value
P-value
LHD,
CONS
-17.50
34
- .3443
. 0015
LHD,
RHD
-2.803
21
-1.000
. 3285
RHD,
CONS
14.697
33
2.814
. 0082
Table C-59 T-Tests of Percentage of Responses for Recoded Range
Corrected SCR during the Reward Task
Mean
Diff.
DF
T-value
P-value
LHD,
CONS
-1.667
34
- .461
. 6475
LHD,
RHD
5.758
21
2.158
. 0426
RHD,
CONS
7.424
33
1.882
. 0687


48
There is a large body of literature based on
anticipation of aversive stimuli. In one study, cluster
analysis was used to identify different patterns of HR
responses during anticipation of aversive noise (Hodes,
Cook, & Lang, 1985) Results indicated that there were
three types of responders; accelerators, decelerators, and
moderate decelerators similar to the groups obtained by Hare
(1972). The authors concluded that both the accelerators
and decelerators developed the expectancy that the CS+ would
precede the presentation of UCS. Accelerators, however,
associated fear with the CS+, while the decelerators did
not. The authors suggested that because the classical
aversive conditioning paradigm specifies no overt response
set, the subjects spontaneously assumed a response
disposition. Specifically, some responded with an
anticipatory, attentive set demonstrated by decelerators,
whereas others displayed an implicit avoidance characterized
by a defensive response. Moderate decelerators showed
discordance between verbal and physiological behavior.
Thus, these subjects maintained an attentive set, but
evaluated the stimuli as aversive instead of interesting.
The authors concluded that "It is conceivable that the
tactile assault of shock is necessary to consistently elicit
DR's to such potentially skin mordant stimuli as snakes and
spiders," (p.555).


214
Table C-43 ANOVA Table of D2 during the Reward Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIF
of F
Group
47.90806
3
15.9694
.85091
.4738
Subject(Group)
80699422
43
18.7673
Tone
4.18219
1
4.18219
.40701
. 5269
Tone by Group
9.15995
3
3.05332
.29715
. 8272
Tone by
Subject(Group)
441.84627
43
10.2755
Block
34.85478
3
11.6183
1.8012
. 1502
Block by Group
53.03792
9
5.89310
.91366
. 5156
Block by
Subject(Group)
832.04873
129
6.44999
Tone by Block
15.82781
3
5.27594
.72497
.5389
Tone by Block
by Group
48.26175
9
5.36242
.73685
. 6745
Tone by Block
by
Subject(Group)
938.79032
129
7.27744


220
Table C-50 ANOVA Table of Right-sided Zygomatic EMG during the
Reward Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
. 063
3
. 021
.410
.7469
Subject(Group)
2.251
44
. 051
Block
. 041
3
. 014
. 629
. 5975
Block by Group
.271
9
. 030
1.388
. 1996
Block by
Subject(Group)
2.867
132
. 022
Tone
. 001
1
. 001
. 080
.7782
Tone by Group
. 032
3
. 011
1.404
.2543
Tone by
Subject(Group)
.337
44
. 008
Block by Tone
. 001
3
. 001
. 023
. 9952
Block by Tone
by Group
. 107
9
. 012
1.063
.3947
Block by Tone
by
Subject(Group)
1.473
132
. Oil


25
concealed videotapes were used in the second group. One
problem with these differences is that stroke patients may
have more severe cognitive deficits than comparable tumor
patients (Anderson, Damasio & Tranel, 1990). Secondly,
acute pathology is associated with more pervasive deficits
(Borod, in press). Thirdly, FACS may be insufficiently
sensitive to facial expressive communication (Buck, 1990).
Asymmetries in facial expressiveness have also been
examined in normal adults. In a recent review of 23 studies
of spontaneous expression and 24 studies of posed
expression, Borod (in press) concluded that the left
hemiface is more intense and moves more than the right
hemiface. According to Borod, these results were stronger
for negative than positive emotions. There have been
fewer studies of prosodic emotion than facial expression of
emotion in patients with unilateral damage. Studies of
spontaneous prosodic expression have revealed deficits in
RHD patients compared to LHD patients and NHD controls (Ross
& Mesulam, 1979; Borod et al. 1985; Gorelick & Ross, 1987;
Ross, 1981) Similar results were found in investigations
of voluntary affective prosody, such that RHD patients
showed impairment relative to LHD and NHD controls (Borod et
al., 1990; Gorelick & Ross, 1987; Tucker, et al., 1977).
However, Cancelliere and Kertesz (1990) found no impairments
in either RHD and LHD patients relative to NHD controls.


105
Table 4-4 Mean Change Scores and Standard Deviations for
Facial EMG during the Shock Condition
CEMG
ZGL
ZGR
LHD
.011 (.077)
-.009 (.111)
-.001 (.094)
LH NCS
.006 (.094)
.015 (.076)
-.005 (.107)
RHD
.031 (.175)
.010 (.115)
.013 (.100)
RH NCS
.008 (.102)
.023 (.097)
.013 (.107)
There was, however, an interaction between group and
block for zygomatic left [F(9,132) = 2.45, P < .01]. The
ANOVA table, Table C-33, is presented in Appendix C. The
group by block interaction was further explored by examining
block differences separately for each group. The was a
significant difference between the groups for block 1
[F(3,44) = 3.054, P < .05], but not block 2 [F(3,44) =
1.657, P = .1901], block 3 [F(3,44) = 1.543, P =.2167], or
block 4 [F(3,44) = 1.743, P = .1720]. The results for block
analyses are provided in Tables C-34, C-35, C-36, and C-37.
Further exploration of the main effect of group which
was significant in the analysis of block 1 was conducted
using independent t-tests with a Bonferroni correction.
Results of these analyses revealed that none of the groups
were significantly different from one another. These
results are depicted in Table C-38 of Appendix C. The means
and standard deviations are as follows: LHD patients (mean=-
.047, sd=.082) LH NCS (mean=.013, sd=.042), RHNCS
(mean=.025, sd=.060), RHD (mean=.020, sd=.076).


26
Emotional arousal/activation
Few studies have examined affective psychophysiological
reactivity in brain-lesioned individuals. In the most
commonly used procedure, emotional slides have been used to
evoke affective responses while skin conductance response
(SCR) is measured. Findings indicate that normals and
patients with LHD have significantly higher SCRs to
emotional than neutral slides. In contrast, RHD patients do
not differentially respond to emotional and neutral slides
(Morrow, Vrtunski, Kim, & Boiler, 1981; Zoccolatti, Scabini,
& Violani, 1982).
Similar results were obtained by Meadows and Kaplan
(1992) using slides depicting neutral and negative content
(i.e., mutilations). Relative to NHD controls, RHD patients
had smaller SCRs to both emotional and neutral slides, LHD
patients had high SCRs to both types of slides. Contrary
to the above findings, Schrandt, Tranel, and Damasio (1989)
found that left hemisphere lesions and many right hemisphere
lesions did not interfere with SCR during presentation of
emotional slides. In this study, patients with focal
lesions in left or right frontal, parietal, or temporal
lobes were examined. Only patients with right hemisphere
lesions involving the supramarginal gyrus displayed abnormal
SCRs .
In another study, Heilman, Schwartz, andWatson (1978)
investigated SCR while a mildly noxious electrical stimulus


159
research conducted with LHD and RHD subjects (i.e., Heilman,
et al., 1978; Meadows & Kaplan, 1994; Zoccolotti et al.,
1982). Additionally, recent evidence by Tranel and Damasio
(1994) suggests that certain regions of the brain within the
left and right hemisphere affect SCR whereas other regions
do not. There findings are discussed more fully below.
Global versus Bivalent Models of Emotion
Subjects displayed differential SCRs in the shock
compared to the no-shock conditions. RHD patients, however,
showed a paucity of responding when their SCR magnitude was
compared to the NCs. This finding is consistent with both
the global and bivalent theories of emotion. Both of these
theories predict that RHD will cause a deficit in emotional
processing of unpleasant or negative emotional states.
Valence effects during the reward condition were needed to
provide overall support for the global or bivalent models.
According to the global theory of emotion, RHD patient would
show deficiencies in the emotional experience of all
emotional states regardless of the valence of the emotion.
Thus, RHD patients should have demonstrated a deficit in SCR
during the reward as well as the shock condition. In
contrast, according to the bivalent view of emotions, the
RHD patients were expected to display normal processing of
positive emotional experiences, whereas the LHD were
expected to show deficiencies in processing of pleasant
experiences. Moreover, since SCR did not reliable


78
Procedure
At the beginning of each test session, there was
approximately a 5 minute adaption period during which the
recording electrodes had been applied and the subject
relaxed while sitting in a comfortable chair in a climate
controlled shielded room. Following this adaption period,
basic physiologic reactivity (HR, SCR) to a series of 24
tones, in 8 blocks of three with two tones at 400 Hz and one
at 100 Hz (each at 60 db for .5 seconds) was measured and
the course of orienting and habituation was assessed.
The anticipatory anxiety paradigm adopted from Reiman
et al. (1989) to induce negative emotion and reward portion
of the study to evoke positive emotion were given
independently and the order in which they were given was
counterbalanced by subject for each group. For both the
anticipatory anxiety and anticipatory reward, there was 40
trials: 20 control and 20 experimental shock or reward
trials. Each trial began with a meditation period of 2 to 3
seconds, where subjects repeated the number one silently to
themselves, followed by one of four tones (between 500 and
1500 Hz for 1 second at 60db). Physiological measurements
were recorded during the last second of each baseline period
through the six second interstimulus interval and through
the six second stimulus and recovery period.


12 males in both the RHD and the RH NC groups. In the LHD
and LH NC groups there were 11 males and 1 female within
each group. Separate analyses of variance (ANOVA) were
used with group (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS) as the between
subject factor to determine if there were any group
differences in age and education. There was no significant
difference in the age of the subjects between each group.
The means and standard deviations for age of each group are
as follows: RHD=63.01(9.74), RH NCS=63.92(10.63),
LHD=66.75(7.59) LH NCS = 68.67(7.35) .
There was also no significant differences between the
number of years of education for subjects between each
group. The means and standard deviations of years of
education for each group are as follows: RHD=13.08(3.97),
RH NCS=14.25(2.83), LHD=12.79(2.60), LH NCS=13.83(3.95).
The ANOVA tables for the analyses examining age and
education are presented below.
AGE
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG of
F
GROUP
238.729
3
79.576
. 996
.404
ERROR
3514.750
44
79.881
EDUCATION
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG of
F
GROUP
16.182
3
5.394
0.468
0.706
ERROR
507.563
44
11.536


53
evoke emotional states in the laboratory. Thus, using an in
vivo situation in which nonverbal emotional stimuli do not
have to be interpreted would be useful in evoking emotion in
RHD patients. Ideally, it is crucial for positive and
negative emotions to be equally arcusing. Unfortunately, it
is difficult to equate in vivo positive and negative
emotional experiences in emotional arousal because highly
arousing negative emotional experience is much easier to
experimentally induce than highly arcusing positive
emotional experience.
It is important to define emotional experience and how
it can be measured. As mentioned above, emotional
experience is defined as a phenomenon which can be
indirectly measured using physiological measures (e.g., HR
and SCR), overt behavior (e.g., facial expression, in this
case measured using CEMG and ZEMG), and verbal report (e.g.,
paper and pencil assessment measures). In normal subjects
these three response systems have usually been found to be
concordant; however, discordant responses have been revealed
in pathological populations (Patrick, Bradley, & Lang,
1991). These discordant results may imply that the three
response systems are mediated by different subsystems. In
brain damaged patients discordance is often observed. For
example, patients with pseudobulbar laughter display overt
behaviors of emotion, but verbally deny feelings associated
with emotion (Heilman, Bowers, & Valenstein, 1993). These


239
Table C-73 ANOVA Table of Positive Affect during Shock Task of
Experiment Two
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
458.69792
3
152.89931
. 74276
. 5323
Subj ect(Group)
9057.54167
44
205.85322
Trial
1.76042
1
1.76042
. 19338
. 6623
Trial by Group
15.19792
3
5.06597
. 55650
. 6465
Trial by
Subj ect(Group)
400.54167
44
9.10322
Table C-74 ANOVA Table of Negative Affect during Shock Task of
Experiment Two
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
39.58333
3
13.19444
.39313
. 7585
Subject(Group)
1476.75000
44
33.56250
Trial
24.00000
1
24.00000
9.5207
. 0035
Trial by Group
6.08333
3
2.02778
.80441
.4982
Trial by
Subj ect(Group)
110.91667
44
2.52083


256
Levenson, R. W. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1990).
Voluntary facial action generates emotion-specific
autonomic nervous system activity.
Psychophysiology. 27. 363-384.
Ley, R. & Byrden, M. (1979). Hemispheric differences in
processing emotions and faces. Brain and Language. 7./
127-138.
Ley, R. & Bryden, M. (1982). A dissociation of right and
left hemispheric effects for recognizing emotional tone
and verbal content. Brain and Cognition. 1, 3-9.
Maclean, P. D. (1949). Psychosomatic disease and the
visceral brain. Recent developments bearing on the
Papez theory of emotion. Psychosomatic Medicine.
11, 338-353.
Maclean, P. D. (1952). Some psychiatric implications of
physiological studies of the frontotemporal portion of
the limbic system. Electroencephalography and Clinical
Neurophysiology. 4., 407-418.
Mammacuri, A., Caltagirone, C., Ekman, P., Friesen, W.,
Gainotti, G. Pizzamiglio, L, & Zoccolatti, P. (1988).
Spontaneous facial expression of emotion in brain
damaged patients. Cortex. 24. 521-533.
McCanne, T. R., & Anderson, J. A. (1987). Emotional
responding following experimental manipulation of
facial electromyographic activity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52., 759-768.
McLaren, J., & Bryson, S. (1987). Hemispheric asymmetry in
the perception of emotional and neutral faces. Cortex,
23, 645-654.
Meadows, M. & Kaplan, R. F. (1992). Dissociation of
autonomic and subjective responses in right
hemisphere damaged patients. Presented at meeting
of International Neuropsychology Society, San
Diego.
Meadows, M. & Kaplan, R. F. (1994). Dissociation of
autonomic and subjective responses to emotional
slides in right hemisphere damaged patients.
Neuropsvchologia. 32., 847-856.
Miller, G. A., Levin, D. N., Kozak, M. J., Lang, P. J.
(1987). Individual differences in imagery and
psychophysiology of emotion. Cognition and
Emotion. 4, 367-390.


161
Neuroanatomic Correlates
It is important to examine these findings from the
neurobiological perspective. Below some of the current
evidence regarding the neural organization of emotion will
be reviewed. Based on this information, the current
findings will be discussed.
In a recent review of the neurobiology of emotional
conditioning, LeDoux (1994) described two pathways
responsible for shock conditioning, a cortical and
subcortical pathway. LeDoux describe recent work in animals
where tones are paired with shock. The tone comes through
the ear proceed from the auditory nerves to the auditory
midbrain to the auditory thalamus. The auditory thalamus
has projections to the primary auditory cortex as well as to
the amygdala. In animals, fear conditioning still occurs
after bilateral ablation of the primary auditory cortex.
According to LeDoux the cortical system is involved in
the slower, top-down interpretation of the emotional
significance of the situation. In this study, it remains
unclear whether the RHD and most of the LHD accurately
interpreted the situation correctly. The lack of SCR
findings may be related to the inability of subjects to
interpret the anticipatory trials accurately.
Heilman, Watson, and Valenstein (1994), reviewed the
literature on reaction time tasks in patients with
unilateral lesions which revealed that RHD patients had


Ill
different from one another, however, the difference between
blocks 1 (mean=9. 66, sd=13.07) and block 2 (mean=5.84,
sd=ll.64) approached significance [T(l,46) = 2.727, P =
.009]. Block 3 (mean=6.17, sd=12.76) and Block 4
(mean=6.86, sd=14.82) were not significantly different from
each other or Blocks 1 and 2. A table of these t-tests,
Table C-46, is presented in Appendix C.
To examine the block by condition interaction, four
paired t-tests were used with a Bonferroni correction
requiring a P < .0125 to compare the reward and control
tones for each block. Results revealed that at block 1, SCR
was significantly greater [T(l,46) = 3.172, P < .01]
following the no-reward tone (mean=12.50, sd=14.28) than
following the reward tone (mean=6.82, sd=11.19). There were
no significant differences between the reward and no-reward
conditions for the remaining blocks (block 2: mean of no-
reward=5.32, sd=10.82; mean of reward=6.36, sd=12.50, block
3: mean of no-reward=5.16, sd=11.62; mean of reward=7.18,
sd=13.86, and block 4 mean of no-reward=6.79, sd=13.11; mean
of reward=6.93, sd=16.50). The results of the t-tests are
presented in Table C-47 in Appendix C.
The SCR magnitude was also examined using logarithmic
transformations. Using the same design, the results were
unchanged from the findings obtained using the
nontransformed data.


94
ANOVA table, Table C-6, is presented in Appendix C. To
further explore the three way interaction, separate repeated
measures analyses of variance (ANOVAS) for each condition
with group as the between subject factor and block as the
within subject factor were conducted. For the shock
condition, the main effect for group, block, and the
interaction were all nonsignificant. Examination of the
no-shock condition, revealed that there was a main effect
for group [F(3,43) = 3.38, P < .05] and a block by group
interaction [F(9,129) = 7.77, P <.05] The main effect for
tone by block was not significant. See Tables C-7 and C-8
in Appendix C.
Post-hoc analyses of the group effect were conducted
using independent t-tests with a Bonferroni correction.
Because there were no significant differences between the RH
NCS and the LH NCS [T(l,21) = 1.753, P = .0942], the control
subjects were combined into one group and compared to the
LHD and RHD subjects. Since three comparisons were made,
the p-value needed to be < .017 to reach significance. The
LHD gioup (mean=-2.30, sd=2.57) had a greater D1 compared to
the RHD group (mean=-1.15, sd=1.58) during the no-shock
condition [T (1,22) = -2.605, P < .0162] There were no
significant differences between the LHD group and the CONs
or the RHD group and the CONs. The means and standard
deviations for the CONs are reported below: LH NCS (mean=-


along with the RHD group displays an impairment in SCR
magnitude during the shock condition.


5
structures and changes are often not experienced
consciously. Fourth, he stated that visceral changes are
slow and thus, cannot be a source of emotion. Fifth, he
claimed that producing artificial visceral changes does not
produce affect. He used adrenalin as an example stating
that adrenalin produces bodily changes that are not
accompanied by affective states. He concluded that the
sensation of visceral responses cannot produce affect.
Cannon hypothesized that "emotional expression results
from action of subcortical centers" (p.115). Cannon cited
studies in which various types of decorticate animals
displayed abnormal affective responses, whereas animals with
hypothalamotomies failed to display affective behavior.
Consequently, Cannon concluded that the cerebral cortex
normally inhibits thalamic activation. He purported that
during normal emotional experience sensory information
arrives at the cortex and is projected to the hypothalamus
releasing it from cortical control. Cannon proposed that
hypothalamic activation relays information to somatic
musculature and smooth musculature of the viscera to produce
characteristic manifestations of emotion. Simultaneously,
the hypothalamus projects to cortex which produces the
conscious awareness of emotion. According to Cannon
muscular changes, visceral changes, and conscious experience
of emotion all occur simultaneously. The result is intense


248
Bowers, K. S. (1971b). Heart rate and GSR concomitants of
vigilance and arousal. Canadian Journal of Psychology,
25. 175-184.
Bradley, M. M., Lang, P. J., Cuthbert, B N. (1991). The
Gainesville murders: imagining the worst. Society for
Psychological Research. 28, sl4 [abstract].
Briggs, G. G., & Nebes, R. D. (1975). Patterns of hand
preference in a student population. Cortex. 11. 230-
238 .
Brown, S. L., & Schwartz, G. E. (1980). Relationships
between facial electromyography and subjective
experience during affective imagery. Biological
Psychology, 11, 49-62.
Brownell, H., Michelon, D., Powelson, J., Gardner, H.
(1983). Surprise but not coherence: Sensitivity to
verbal humor in right hemisphere patients. Brain
and Language. 18, 20-27.
Buck, R. (1990). Using FACS versus communication scores to
measure spontaneous facial expression of emotion in
brain damaged patients. Cortex. 26, 275-280.
Buck, R., Sc Duffy, R. J. (1980) Nonverbal communication of
affect in brain damaged patients. Cortex. 16, 351-362.
Cacioppo, J. T., Martzke, J. S., Petty, R. E., & Tassinary,
L. G. (1988) Specific forms of facial EMG response
index emotions during an interview: from darwin to the
continuous flow hypothesis of affect-laden information
processing. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 592-604.
Cacioppo, J. T., Sc Petty, R. E., Losch, M. E., & Kim, H. S.
(1986). Electromyography activity over facial muscle
regions can differentiate the valence and intensity of
affective reactions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 50. 260-268.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Morris, K. J. (1985).
Semantic,evaluative, and self-referent processing:
Memory, cognitive effort, and somatovisceral
activity. Psychophysiology. 22., 371-384.
Cacioppo, J. T. Sc Tassinary, L. G (1990) Psychophysiology
and psychophysiological inference. In J. T. Cacioppo &
L. G. Tassinary (Eds.), Principles of psychophysiology.
New York: Cambridge University Press.


148
differed from the present study in that subjects were not
given differential cues to predict whether the noxious
stimulus would occur or not.
Additionally, individual differences in heart rate
responding during fear conditioning have been observed
(Hare, 1972; Hodes, Cook, and Lang, 1985) While most
individuals responded to fear anticipation with
predominantly heart rate acceleration, some individuals have
been found to respond to anticipation of a feared stimulus
with heart rate deceleration. As a consequence, it may be
that a larger sample size is needed for a significant heart
rate acceleration to be observed statistically.
Skin conductance
The predictions that SCR would be greater during shock
compared to the shock control trials were supported.
Consistent with previous literature, skin conductance
responses were greater during the threat of shock compared
to safe trials (Bankart & Elliot, 1974; Bowers, 1971a,
1971b). As expected, SCR also habituated during the shock
conditions, such that SCR during block 1 was significantly
greater than during blocks 2, 3, and 4.
Facial electromyography
Corrugator EMG was expected to be greater during shock
compared to the no-shock condition, whereas zygomatic EMG
was expected to show a either a decrease or smaller increase
during the shock compared to the no-shock trials. Other


236
Table C-70 ANCOVA Table of Recoded Range Corrected SCR during the
Shock Task with Medication as a Covariate
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig of
F
Within and
Residual (Group)
34779.18
42
828.08
Regression
723.56
1
723.56
. 87
.355
Group
3888.28
3
1296.09
1.57
.212
Within and
Residual (Block
by Group)
12196.85
12
9
94.55
Block
3987.68
3
1329.23
14.06
. 000
Group by Block
1123.81
9
124.87
1.32
.232
Within and
Residual (Tone by
Group)
7716.13
43
179.44
Tone
4191.21
1
4191.21
23.36
. 000
Group by Tone
3551.95
3
1183.98
6.60
. 001
Within and
Residual (Block
by Tone by Group)
10495.21
12
9
81.36
Block by Tone
934.60
3
311.53
3.83
. Oil
Group by Block by
Tone
355.22
9
39.47
.49
.882


8
(1962) proposed that physiological arousal along with
cognitive appraisal are both essential for emotion to
result. They suggested that some event or condition creates
physiological arousal which is combined with evaluation of
the event or condition (cognitive appraisal) to lead to the
experience of emotion.
Central to appraisal theories is the view that the
experience of any emotion (i.e., joy, anger, fear) involves
the same physiological arousal, but different cognitive
appraisals. Lazarus and Averill (1972) explained that
emotion results from appraisal of stimuli and the
formulation of a response. In their view, appraisal reduces
and organizes stimulus input to a specific concept, (e.g., a
threat). Lazarus and Averill also asserted that personal
psychological structure and social norms also influence
appraisal. Most importantly, they concluded that appraisal
determines the specific emotional experience. For example,
anger has been associated with the perception of goal
obstacles, whereas fear is associated with perceived
uncertainty about and unpleasant situation (Ellsworth &
Smith, 1988) However, these theorists place little or no
emphasis on neural hardware which might underlie or
contribute to appraisal.
Differential Emotion Theory
The Differential Emotion Theory was developed by
Tomkins (1962, 1963) who proposed that awareness of


166
having subjects respond in some way is that their
physiological responding, especially heart rate, will be
influenced by the motor response.
In sum, in the present study attempts were made to
measure multiple emotional response systems by using in vivo
emotional experiences in patient with left and right
cortical strokes. This study is unique in that pleasant and
unpleasant experiences were examined separately, multiple
response systems of emotion were measures, and that in vivo
rather than perceptual stimuli were used to evoke emotions.
The findings revealed that in normal subjects, skin
conductance and verbal report differentiated the shock from
the no-shock task. In the reward task, only verbal report
clearly differentiated the stimulus from control conditions.
Within the shock condition, both RHD and most LHD
demonstrated decreased skin conductance responding relative
to the normal controls, but had no differences in verbal
report. These findings could be reflective of actual
deficits in electrodermal arousal or inability to clearly
understand the top-down nature of the anticipatory task.


157
No group differences were found on the verbal report
ratings. It is interesting that although the RHD patients
do not have a normal SCR while anticipating an electric
shock, they nonetheless reported feeling the same intensity
of unpleasantness, arousal, and loss of control as the LHD
group and NCS. Meadows and Kaplan (1994) found similar
results when measuring SCR and verbal report in RHD and LHD
patient groups as they viewed emotional slides.
At this point, however, it is important to note that
one LHD subject, L7, had a larger magnitude of SCRs than the
other LHD subjects. When this subject is removed from the
analyses, the LHD subjects have significantly lower SCR
magnitude compared to NCs. This subject was unique in that
SCR was measured from his hand contralateral to his lesion
because his left arm had been amputated due to
thromophebitis, a type of disease that cause blood clots
within the peripheral veins. As mentioned above, recent
evidence suggests that SCRs are not significantly different
when measured on the left and rights hands of patients with
brain damage (Tranel and Damasio, 1994). At the same time,
it is important to restate that without inclusion of this
subject, similar to the RHD group, the LHD group has
significantly smaller SCR magnitudes compared to the NCs.
There are a few possible explanations for the decreased
number and magnitude of SCRs during the shock condition in
RHD and most LHD subjects. First, although the brain damage


34
left activation. However, EEG activation of right frontal
and right parietal regions was associated with emotion
intensity. Also, inferring hemispheric activation using
LEM, findings supported greater right hemisphere activation
during negative emotion experience and left hemisphere
activation during positive emotion experience, but LEM
methodology has also been criticized.
Specific bivalent models
In general, the bivalent model posits that the left
hemisphere is specialized for positive/approach emotions and
the right hemisphere is specialized for negative/avoidance
emotions. However, there are many variations of the general
bivalent model. Kinsbourne and Bemporad (1984) suggested
that the left fronto-temporal cortex exerts action control,
defined as manipulating external stimuli. They argued that
left posterior parietal cortex sends exteroceptive input to
the left fronto-temporal cortex. The right fronto-temporal
cortex, on the other hand, controls emotional, internal
arousal, while the right posterior cortex relays
interoceptive information to the emotional control system.
Consequently, in patients with right focal lesions,
meaningfulness of environmental stimuli is deficient. Thus,
RHD patients experience inappropriate emotionality.
Additionally, Kinsbourne and Bemporad explained that the RH
is specialized for monitoring both positive and negative
emotional valence, but positive states enhance motivation


83
Facial electromyography
A computer program calculated baseline corrugator
electromyography (CEMG), left zygomatic electromyography
(ZGL), and right zygomatic electromyography (ZGR) along with
average CEMG, ZGL, and ZGR over the six second period for
each block within each experimental condition. As a
consequence, for each trial block, there was one baseline
and one average score for each stimulus and control trial
for each of the three facial muscles regions: CEMG, ZGL,
ZGR. Difference scores for each of the variables was
obtained for each block by subtracting the average score
from the average baseline score for each subject.
Experiment 2: Subjective Report of Emotion During
Anticipatory Shock and Reward Tasks by RHP, LHP, and NHD
Patients
This experiment also consisted of two parts, an
anticipatory anxiety task and an anticipatory reward task.
Both were similar in kind to those of Experiment 1 except
that a 5 minute anticipatory interval was used in this study
in order to give the subjects time to complete verbal report
questionnaires about their affective state during
anticipation. In this experiment, the anticipatory shock
task and the anticipatory reward task were counterbalanced
by subject within each group.
Stimuli and Apparatus
The stimuli and apparatus used to dispense the shocks
were identical to used in Experiment 1. Additionally, two


90
Skin conductance
The percentage of responses greater than .02 micro
sieman was analyzed using a repeated measures analysis of
variance with group (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS) as the
between subjects factor and tone (low and high) as the
within subject factor. One RHD subject was excluded due to
faulty electrode connections which resulted in corrupt data.
Results revealed that the main effect of group, tone, and
the group by tone interaction were not significant. The
mean percentage of responses and standard deviations for
each group were as follows: LHD, mean=8.07%, sd=25.73; LH
NCS, mean=25.52%, sd=36.16; RHD, mean=7.67%, sd=19.19; RH
NCS, mean=29.69%, sd=26.47. The full ANOVA table, Table C-
3, is presented in Appendix C.
The recoded range corrected skin conductance response
(SCR) was analyzed using a repeated measures analysis of
variance (ANOVA) with group (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS) as
the between-subject factor and tone (low, high) and block (1
to 8) as the within subject factors. As mentioned above,
one subject was excluded due to corrupt data. The main
effect for group [F(3,43) = 1.91, P =.1421], block [F(7,43)
= 1.20, P = .3017], and tone [F(l,43) = .21, P = .6495] were
not significant. The interactions between block and group
[F(21, 301) = .70, P = .8305], tone and group [F(3,43) =
.33, P = .80], and between block, tone, and group [F(21,301)
= .87, P = .6244] were also not significant. The full ANOVA


67
ratings of unpleasantness, arousal, powerlessness on
the Self Assessment Manikin, and the negative affect
factor score of the Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule) than the RHD group. The LHD and NHD groups
will report greater state anxiety during shock than no
shock control trials. The difference in reported
anxiety will be attenuated in RHD patients between
shock and no shock control trials.
2. During prize anticipation, the LHD and NHD subjects will
report greater positive emotions (based on dimensional
ratings of pleasantness, arousal, and dominance on the
Self Assessment Manikin, and the positive affect factor
score of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule)
compared to the RHD. LHD and NHD groups will report
more positive emotions during prize compared to no
reward trials. The difference in reported positive
emotions will be smaller during prize compared to no
reward trials in RHD patients.
B) Bivalent Emotion Model: Predictions based on the
bivalent view are:
1. During shock anticipation, the LHD subjects will report
greater or equal anxiety compared to the NHD patients,
whereas RHD subjects will report less anxiety than the
NHD group. More anxiety will be reported during shock
compared to no shock trials for LHD and NHD patients.


11
identifying the underlying emotions of posed expressions;
and (3) developmental research has indicated that facial
musculature is fully formed and functional at birth and
infants display many facial expressions similar to adult
expressions. Also, infants demonstrate differential
responses to facial expressions by 3 months of age and have
the capacity to imitate facial movements within the first
few days of life.
One problem not addressed by the differential emotions
theorists is whether spontaneous experience of these
emotions is accompanied by the occurrence of the predicted
facial expression (Davidson, in press). For instance,
Davidson stated that little is known about the incidence of
different facial expressions depending on context or type of
emotion elicitor (i.e., imagery, emotional film clip). For
example, Tomarken and Davidson (1992) found very few overt
expressions of fear in response to fear film clips. Also,
Davidson (in press) raised questions concerning the facial
expressions of positive emotion. Specifically, he indicated
that while there are multiple forms of positive affect as
evidenced using behavioral, subjective, and physiological
indices, there is only one facial expression indicative of
the experience of positive emotion.
Dimensional Approaches
In an attempt to explain the polarity of emotion,
dimensional theorists have conceptualized emotion as varying


44
independently, but muscle activity of the left and right
zygomatic regions can be stimulated separately.
During affective imagery, positive emotional states
have been associated with decreased corrugator and increased
zygomatic activity. Conversely, negative emotional states
have been associated with increased corrugator activity and
decreased zygomatic activity (Schwartz et al., 1976a,
1976b). Also, when verbal report of emotions has been
obtained, corrugator activity positively correlates with
unpleasant emotions and negatively correlates with pleasant
emotions. The opposite pattern has been found for zygomatic
activity (Brown & Schwartz, 1980; McCanne & Anderson, 1987;
Slomine and Greene, 1993). Similar results have been
reported from other investigators using self-referent
statements designed to induce either elation or depression
(Sirota, Schwartz, & Kristeller, 1987), and affective slides
(Cacioppo, Petty, Lasen, and Kim, 1986) Additionally, an
interview technique was employed to elicit and investigate
naturally occurring emotional states (Cacioppo, Martzke,
Petty and Tassinary, 1988). Replicating previous findings,
elevations in corrugator EMG were related to lower positive
emotion ratings and higher negative emotional ratings.
In sum, the above studies attest to the importance of
the covert activity of the corrugator supercilli and
zygomatic major muscles as indexes of emotion.
Specifically, EMG activity of the corrugator supercilli has


basis of emotional phenomenon and theoretical issues. They
concluded that a definition of emotion should be broad
3
enough to include significant aspects of emotion, but still
be able to distinguish emotion from other psychological
phenomenon. They suggested the following definition:
Emotion is a complex set of interactions among
subjective and objective factors, mediated by
neural/hormonal systems, which can (a) give rise to
affective experiences such as feelings of arousal,
pleasure/displeasure; (b) generate cognitive processes
such as emotionally relevant perceptual effects,
appraisals, labeling processes; (c) activate widespread
physiological adjustments to the arousing conditions;
and (d) lead to behavior that is often, but not always,
expressive, goal directed, and adaptive, (p. 355)
Like the numerous definitions of emotions, there are many
theories of emotion. These differ in their
conceptualization of emotional experience and the role of
cognition in emotional experience. A few prominent emotion
theories are described below.
James-Lange versus Cannon Debate
James (1884/1922) and Lange (1922) were the first to
challenge the common sense view that perception of an event
was followed by the experience of emotion. James stated
that "...the bodily changes follow the perception of the
exciting fact, and that our feelings of the same changes as
they occur is the emotion" (p.13). James proposed that, in
order to experience emotion, one must simultaneously exhibit
physiological and expressive changes, such as tensed muscles
and quickened heart rate during fear. Specifically, the
James-Lange theory states that perception occurs when an


1.13, sd=1.45), RH NCS (mean=-1.94, sd=2.20). A table of
the t-tests, Table C-9, is presented in Appendix C.
95
Post-hoc analyses of the group by block interaction
were performed. T-tests with Bonferroni corrections were
conducted to compare the groups separately for each block.
As mentioned above, the LH NCS and the RH NCS were combined.
Using the Bonferroni correction of p < .017 for
significance, no significant differences between groups were
revealed during blocks 1, 3, and 4. However, during block
2, the LHD subjects had a greater D1 [T(l,22) = -2.62, P
<.017], (mean=-3.42, sd=2.64) compared with the RHD subjects
(mean=-1.23, sd=1.16), but not the CONs [T(l,33) = -2.10, P
= .043] Tables of the t-tests for each block, Table C-10,
C-ll, C-12, and C-13, are presented in Appendix C. The
means for each group for each block are presented below.
Table 4-2 Means and Standard Deviations of D1 during the
Control Trials of the Shock Condition
Block
One
Block
Two
Block
Three
Block
Four
LHD
-1.0583
(1.987)
-3.417
(2.638)
-3.050
(3.206)
-1.683
(1.716)
LH NCS
-1.718
( .745)
-1.063
(1.943)
- 945
(1.662)
- .800
(1.202)
RHD
-1.483
(1.206)
- 850
(1.141)
-1.875
(1.475)
-.4000
(2.072)
RH NCS
-2.342
(2.807)
-2.175
(2.406)
-1.025
(1.716)
-2.225
(1.644)
As with D1, a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted
using group as the between-subjects factor and block and


192
Table C-6 ANOVA Table of D1 during Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG of
F
Group
51.64414
3
17.2147
1
2.738
. 0550
Subject (Group)
270.31
43
6.28629
Tone
1.236
1
1.23648
.20271
. 6548
Tone by Group
7.53
3
2.51059
.41159
. 7455
Tone by Subject
(Group)
262.288
43
6.09973
Block
1.85
3
. 618
.18456
. 9067
Block by Group
44.505
9
4.945
1.4761
. 1634
Block by
Subject (Group)
432.15
129
3.350
Tone by Block
12.01
3
4.004
. 84401
.4722
Tone by Block
by Group
89.38
9
9.931
2.0930
. 0346
Tone by Block
by
Subject(Group)
612.09
129
4.745


85
1. During the five minute anticipation period, negative
emotions were assessed using the Positive and Negative
Affect Schedule (PANAS) (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988),
and the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) (Hodes, Cook, & Lang,
1985). The experimenter read each item to the subjects and
recorded the responses.
In the no-shock task, subjects waited for a five minute
period with the understanding that they would not receive a
shock. The no-shock control condition consisted of a five
minute period during which time the subjects were
administered the PANAS and SAM.
Anticipatory reward task
The reward condition consisted of counterbalanced
reward and no-reward conditions. In the reward condition,
subjects waited to receive a reward. During the reward
condition, subjects were informed that they would receive
between 5 and 8 dollars, lottery tickets, or a combination
of both. Subjects were administered the PANAS and SAM while
waiting for the reward. In the no-reward condition,
subjects were informed that they were not receiving a
reward. The same questionnaires were administered during
the five minute no-reward condition.
Design Issues
A few problems inherent in the design of this project
are presented here. First, it is presumed that the positive
and negative emotions experienced in the anticipatory prize


73
Baseline Evaluation
The baseline evaluation included a review of
neurological records along with a neuropsychological and
psychophysiological screening. All patients' neurological
records were reviewed by a neurologist prior to acceptance
into the study. All patients psychophysiological responses
to a series of 60db tones was assessed. The
psychophysiological screening is described more fully in the
procedure section for experiment 1. The neuropsychological
screening is described below.
All patients were administered the Information and
Similarities subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale-Revised (WAIS-R), Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised
(Orientation, Digit Span, Logical Stories I,II and Visual
Reproductions I, II subtests), Benton Facial Recognition
Test, Western Aphasia Battery (Spontaneous Speech, Auditory
Comprehension, Repetition, and Naming subtests), Florida
Neglect Battery (shortened version including line bisection,
cancellation, visual extinction, tactile extinction, and
draw/copy a clock). The average performance on these
measures by group is presented in Table B-7. Individual
subjects' performance on these measures are presented in
Tables B-8, B-9, B-10, and B-ll in Appendix B.
T-tests were conducted to examine group differences in
neuropsychological functioning. Examination of the WAIS-R
subtests revealed that the LHD subjects had signicantly


31
reflective questions in normal subjects. They found that
positive emotional questions evoked more LEMs to the left.
They interpreted this as left hemisphere specialization for
positive emotions and right hemisphere specialization for
negative emotions. However, the lateral eye movement
methodology has been criticized (Erlichman & Weinberger,
1978) .
Research on mood
Observation of mood after hemispheric damage has also
been viewed as supporting the bivalent model. Sackheim et
al. (1982) reported that pathological laughing was more
likely to be associated with RHD and pathological crying was
associated with LHD. Additionally, they found that patients
with right hemispherectomies were judged to be euphoric in
mood, while patients with left hemispherectomies were not.
Also, they examined published case reports of gelastic
epileptics, typified by laughing outbursts during ictal
experience, with either left or right lateralized ictal
foci. They found that ictal foci in gelastic epileptics was
predominately left-sided. Based on previous literature, the
authors suggested that the laughing outburst which occurred
during ictal experience were caused by hyperactivity in the
focal area. These authors concluded that both disinhibition
and excitation cause different manifestations in mood in the
right and left hemispheres.


98
responses and responses less than .02 were recoded to 0).
One RHD subject was removed from the analyses due to corrupt
data (the experimenter was unable to get the electrodes to
remain firmly attached to the subject's palm).
Repeated measures analyses of variance were used with
group as the between subject factor and condition (shock,
no-shock) as the within subject factor. Block was not
included in these analyses because there were not enough
responses within each block. Results revealed a main effect
for group [F(3,43) = 3.13, P < .05], a main effect for
condition [F(l,43) = 29.52, P < .001], as well as an
interaction between condition and group [F(3,43) = 6.47, P <
.01]. See Table C-21 for the full ANOVA table in Appendix
C.
The main effect of group was explored using independent
t-tests with a Bonferroni correction. Since the difference
between the LH NCS and RH NCS was not significant, these
groups were combined. Three comparisons were conducted with
a Bonferroni correction of P < .017. Results indicated
that none of the groups were significantly different from
one another. There was a lower percentage of responses in
the RHD group (mean=13.18%, sd=17.15) compared to the CONS
(mean=35.00%, sd=29.00), however, this difference did not
reach significance [T(l,34) = 2.304, P = .0276]. The LHD
group (mean=15.83%, sd=25.09) did not have a significantly


172
Table B-4 Medications taken by LH NCS
Group
Medications
LC1
Glyburide, Metorolol*, Nifidipine*,
Monoxidil, Furolcemide, Liscinopril*,
Docusate, Cimetidine
LC2
None
LC3
None
LC4
Meclizene, Aspirin
LC5
Arthritis medication
LC6
Aspirin, Loped, Zestril*, Glucontrol
LC7
Micronase, Allopurinol, Aspirin
LC8
Aspirin, Digoxin*, Zocor
LC9
Lopressor*, Aspirin, Lasix
LC10
Voltarian, Calcium, Aspirin
LC11
Mevcor, Zynthryroid
LC12
None
* affects the autonomic nervous system


124
reward compared to no-reward trials (mean=.219, sd=.564), [Z
= -3.95, P < .001].
There were no group differences in the ratings of
valence, arousal, and dominance. See Table C-6 8 in Appendix
C for details.
Subjects reported experiencing less pleasantness, more
arousal, and less dominance during the shock compared to the
reward task. There were no group differences in these
ratings.
Medication effects
All medications that the subjects were taking at the
time of the experiment were recorded. Groups differed in
the amount of medications that affect the autonomic nervous
system, including alpha and beta adrenergic blocking agents,
calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, and digoxin.
Eleven of the RHD subjects were taking these medications, 9
of the LHD, 3 of the RH NCS and 4 of the LH NCS. Thus, the
significant skin conductance analyses were reanalyzed using
the presence of medications that affect the autonomic
nervous system as a covariate.
Shock condition. Within the shock task, repeated
measures analyses of covariance were conducted using
percentage of responses with group as the between subject
factor and condition (shock and no-shock) as the within
subject factors. Presence or absence of medication was used
as the covariate. When percentage of responses was examined


13
(postural stance) are critically important for smooth
execution of behaviors necessary for success in survival
tasks. Lang asserted that it is essential to determine how
emotion is represented in memory in order to ascertain how
emotion drives cognitive processing. Lang proposed that
emotion information is coded within memory in the form of
propositions which are organized into associative networks.
The associative networks are comprised of three tiers;
semantic codes, stimulus representation, and response
programs.
According to Lang's Bioinformational Theory (1979,
1984), emotions are associated with action. Access of
emotional propositions are associated with efferent outflow,
and thus emotion can be measured in terms of three response
systems; verbal report, overt behavior (i.e, facial
expression, body posturing, and emotional prosody), and
peripheral and central physiological measures. However,
only stable networks which are called emotion prototypes,
such as those found in phobics, demonstrate a reliable
behavioral output in all three response systems.
Consequently, emotional experience is an epiphenomenon of
the 3 response systems which reflect an underlying centrally
represented propositional network.
Taken together, theories of emotion differ quite
dramatically in their emphasis on and definition of
emotional experience. James and Lange view emotional


228
Table C-60 ANOVA Table of Recoded Range Corrected SCR comparing
Shock and Reward Tasks
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
2351.40
3
783.805
3.07
. 0377
Subject(Group)
10976.56
43
255.27
Block
595.58
3
198.52
1.33
.2670
Block by Group
1018.28
9
113.14
. 7588
.6545
Block by
Subject(Group)
19234.29
129
149.10
Condition
3573.57
1
3573.57
23.21
. 0001
Condition by Group
1335.61
3
445.20
2.89
. 0462
Condition by
Subject(Group)
6619.34
43
153.94
Block by Condition
4598.28
3
1532.76
9.18
. 0001
Block by Condition
by Group
1831.17
9
203.46
1.22
.2891
Block by Condition
by Subject(Group)
21536.40
129
166.95


9
proprioceptive feedback from facial muscles constitutes the
experience of emotion. According to Tomkins, emotion-
specific innate programs for groups of facial expressions
are stored in subcortical centers. Tomkins hypothesized
that once an emotion has been activated, facial feedback is
provided to the cortex. Additionally, Tomkins argued that
it is the facial feedback that initiates visceral
activation.
Differing slightly from Tomkins, Izard (1977) argued
that emotion involves three components; neural activity or
the density of neural firing per unit time, striate muscle
feedback to the brain, and subjective experience. Izard
posited that each component can be dissociated from the
others, but that the three are normally interdependent.
Specifically, according to Izard, internal or external
stimuli affect the gradient of neural stimulation in the
limbic system and sensory cortex. Information from these
areas are relayed to the hypothalamus which plays a role in
determining the facial expression to be effected. From the
hypothalamus, impulses are relayed to the basal ganglia
where the neural message for facial expression is mediated
by motor cortex. Impulses from motor cortex, via cranial
nerve VII lead to the specific facial expression. Cranial
nerve V receives sensory input from the face and projects,
via the posterior hypothalamus, to sensory cortex. It is


24
differences in facial expressiveness has been found between
LHD and RHD patients when Ekman's facial action scoring
system (FACS) has been used (Mammacuri, et al., 1988 ;
Caltagirone, et al. 1989).
Other studies have examined the ability of RHD and LHD
patients to voluntarily pose specific facial expression.
Some investigators have found that RHD patients were more
impaired than LHD patients and NHD controls in their
voluntary expression of facial affect (Borod, Koff, Perlman-
Lorch, & Nicholas, 1986; Borod, Sc Koff, 1990; Kent, et al. ,
1988 ; Richardson, Bowers, Eyeler, Sc Heilman, 1992) Other
investigators (Kolb and Taylor, 1990) found that RHD and LHD
patients are equally impaired relative to NHD controls,
whereas others found no differences in expressivity among
these three groups (Caltagirone et al., 1988; Heilman et
al., 1983; Weddell, et al., 1990).
Borod (submitted) reviewed the literature on facial
expressiveness in unilateral damaged patients. She
concluded that the patients in those studies finding RHD
patients to be more impaired than LHD and normal controls
differed from those in which differences were not found.
Specifically, she noted that the first group was more likely
to be older, male, with cerebrovascular pathology, and a
longer time since disease onset. The second group was more
likely to have tumor pathology. Additionally, subjective
ratings were used in the first group, while FACS and


102
The tone by block interaction was also examined using
paired -t-tests with a Bonferroni correction based on four
comparisons, requiring a P < .0125 for significance. The
SCR for the shock no-shock (mean=21.80, sd=19.89) was
significantly higher than the low tone (mean=10.46,
sd=12.24) for blocks 1 [T(l,46) = -4.655, P < .0001], and
block 4 (shock condition: mean=12.27, sd=19.02; no-shock
condition: mean=4.17, sd=8.48), [T(l,46) = -3.433, P <
.01], but not block 2 (shock condition: mean=12.21,
sd=16.89; no-shock condition: mean=7.46, sd=9.86), [T(l,46)
= -2.264, P = .0284] and block 3 (shock condition:
mean=9.63, sd=14.39; no-shock condition: mean=6.54,
sd=11.59), [T(l,46) = -1.449, P = .1542]. The t-tests are
presented in Table C-28 in Appendix C.
The condition by group interaction was explored using
t-tests with Bonferroni corrections separately for the shock
and no-shock conditions. Since there were not significant
differences between the LH NCS and the RH NCS during the no-
no-shock condition [T(22) = -.257, P = .7995] or the shock
condition [T(22) = -1.338, p = .1946], the two groups were
combined into one control group. Using the bonferroni
correction, the analyses had to reach a p-value of .05/3=
.017 to be considered significant. T-test tables are
provided in Appendix C, Tables C-29 and C-30. During the
shock anticipation, the RHD patients (mean=5.15, sd=8.55)
had significantly smaller responses then the CONS


219
Table C-49 ANOVA Table of Left-Sided Zygomatic EMG during
Reward Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
.300
3
. 100
1.783
. 1644
Subject(Group)
2.473
44
. 056
Block
. 063
3
. 021
. 688
. 5612
Block by Group
.395
9
.044
1.432
. 1807
Block by
Subject(Group)
4.047
132
. 031
Tone
. 018
1
. 018
. 687
.4118
Tone by Group
. 021
3
. 007
.270
. 8466
Tone by
Subject(Group)
1.128
44
. 026
Block by Tone
.075
3
. 025
. 757
.5202
Block by Tone
by Group
.216
9
. 024
.731
. 6799
Block by Tone
by
Subject(Group)
4.332
132
. 033


205
Table C-33 ANOVA Table of Left-sided Zygomatic during the Shock
Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
. 054
3
. 018
1.316
.2811
Subject(Group)
. 605
44
. 014
Block
. 010
3
. 003
.446
.7203
Block by Group
. 158
9
. 018
2.451
. 0130
Block by
Subject(Group)
. 945
13
2
. 007
Tone
.010
1
. 010
1.417
.2403
Tone by Group
.032
3
. 010
1.449
.2416
Tone by
Subject(Group)
.323
44
.007
Block by Tone
. 007
3
. 002
. 171
. 9157
Block by Tone
by Group
. 070
9
. 008
.605
. 7913
Block by Tone
by
Subject(Group)
1.700
13
2
. 013


20
Discrimination of affectively intoned speech was found to be
worse in patients with RHD in the temporoparietal regions
compared to patients with LHD (Tucker, Watson, & Heilman,
1977; Heilman, Scholes, & Watson, 1975; Ross, 1981).
In addition, there is evidence to suggest that RHD
patients are impaired in understanding nonemotional as well
as emotional prosody (Weintraub, Mesulam, & Kramer, 1981) .
Both RHD and LHD patients were impaired compared to NHD
controls in nonemotional prosody, while RHD were more
impaired than the LHD patients in emotional prosody
(Heilman, Bowers, Speedie, & Coslett, 1984). Consequently,
these authors conclude that both hemispheres are important
in comprehension of nonemotional prosody, but the right
hemisphere plays a more vital role in the comprehension of
emotional prosody.
Not all studies find hemispheric specific prosody
dysfunction. Schlanger, Schlanger, and Gerstmann (1976)
found no differences between RHD and LHD patients in
comprehension of emotional prosody; however, only 3 of 20
RHD patients in this study had temporoparietal lesions.
More recently, Van Lancker and Sidtis (1992) found equally
poor affective prosodic recognition in RHD and LHD patients.
Moreover, they determined that LHD and RHD patients use
different cues in attempting to recognize affective prosody.
Specifically, RHD patients tended to use timing cues,
whereas LHD patients used information about pitch. These


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
HEMISPHERIC DIFFERENCES IN EMOTIONAL PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY
BY
Beth S. Slomine
August 1995
Chairperson: Dawn Bowers
Cochairperson: Russell M. Bauer
Major Department: Clinical & Health Psychology
Two theories have been proposed to explain the
organization of emotions within the cortical hemispheres.
According to the global right hemisphere model, the right
hemisphere takes a predominant role in modulating emotions.
Based on the global theory, patients with right hemisphere
damage (RHD) have a deficit in emotional processing of all
emotions. According to the other hemispheric theory of
emotion, the bivalent model, the right hemisphere modulates
negative emotions and the left hemisphere modulates positive
emotions. This model predicts that RHD patients would be
deficient in emotional processing of negative emotions,
whereas patients with left hemisphere damage (LHD) would be
impaired in processing positive emotions.
vi


Heart Rate (Beats per Minute)
0.6
No-Reward
-- Reward
Figure C-5 Heart Rate Change Scores in RHD Ss during Reward Task
210


226
Table C-56 ANOVA Table of Percentage of SCR Responses comparing
Shock and Reward Tasks
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig
of F
Group
2764.21
3
921.40
6.53
. 0010
Subject(Group)
6063.45
43
141.01
Condition
1996.37
1
1996.37
16.50
. 0002
Condition by Group
1021.63
3
340.54
2.81
. 0504
Condition by
Subject(Group)
5202.84
43
121.00
Table C-57 T-Tests of Group Differences in Percentage of Responses
for Recoded Range Corrected SCR during the Shock and Reward Tasks
Combined
Mean
Dif f.
DF
T-value
P-value
LHD,
CONS
-9.583
34
-2.861
. 0072
LHD,
RHD
1.477
21
. 776
.4465
RHD,
CONS
11.061
33
3.282
.0024


33
In a subsequent study, Sinyor, et al. (1986) assessed
both cognitive and vegetative signs of depression using a
variety of verbal report measures in unilateral stroke
patients. Contrary to the above findings, no overall
differences in depression were found between groups.
However, consistent with the above findings, severity of
depression in LHD patients was positively related to
proximity of the lesion to the frontal pole. In addition, a
curvilinear relationship was found for RHD patients such
that both anterior and posterior lesions were associated
with depression. Moreover, House et al. (1990) reported
that RHD patients may be depressed more than is believed,
but due to their deficits in emotional communication, their
depression goes undetected.
Taken together, the results are equivocal. There is
evidence in support of differential moods in left and right
hemisphere damaged patients. Some investigators suggested
that RHD patients express enhanced cheerfulness (e.g.,
Terzian, 1964), and LHD patients express or report
experiencing more depression than RHD patients (e.g.,
Robinson et al., 1984). However, other investigators found
no differences in depressed mood between LHD and RHD
patients. Additionally, some studies revealed that during
negative emotion, greater EEG activation was associated with
anterior right activation. In contrast, during positive
emotion, greater EEG activation was associated with anterior


Table B-11 Results of Neuropsychological Testing for LH NC Group
ID
WAIS-R
INFO
WAIS-R
SIM
DIGIT
SPAN
WMS-R
Orient
WMS-R LOG
MEM I & II
WMS-R VIS
REPRO I & II
NEGLECT
FACIAL
RECOGN
APHASIA
SCORE
LC1
SS = 6
SS = 5
5/3
14
67/68
68/59
No
WNL
LC2
SS = 7
SS = 8
6/4
14
94/97
83/82
No
WNL
10/99.4
LC3
SS = 13
SS = 12
6/4
13
57/81
94/99
No
BORDERLINE
10/100
LC4
SS = 6
SS = 6
7/3
14
21/36
94/84
No
WNL
9.8/97.8
LC5
SS = 13
SS = 15
6/4
14
40/18
64/64
No
WNL
9.95/98.1
LC6
SS = 14
SS = 8
7/4
14
23/32
52/94
No
WNL
10/97.6
LC7
SS = 14
SS = 9
6/5
14
89/87
99/99
No
WNL
10/100
LC8
SS = 14
SS = 7
6/6
14
78/76
99/98
No
WNL
9.85/98.5
LC9
SS = 13
SS = 13
6/3
14
98/98
99/98
No
WNL
9.85/98.9
LC10
SS = 15
SS-11
6/5
14
98/98
99/67
No
WNL
10/100
LC11
SS = 7
SS = 10
7/6
14
68/76
42/58
No
WNL
9.85/96.9
LC12
SS = 5
SS = 9
7/5
14
54/40
34/12
No
WNL
10/98.2


224
Table C-54 ANOVA Table of A1 comparing Shock and Reward Tasks
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
98.429
3
32.810
1
. 667
. 1882
Subject(Group)
846.152
43
19.678
Block
3.623
3
1.208
. 0730
. 9744
Block by Group
203.068
9
22.563
1
.363
.2116
Block by
Subject(Group)
2135.53
129
16.555
Condition
41.456
1
41.456
1
.395
.2440
Condition by Group
172.971
3
57.657
1
. 941
. 1373
Condition by
Subject(Group)
1277.51
43
29.710
Block by Condition
30.398
3
10.133
.
773
. 5114
Block by Condition
by Group
200.119
9
22.235
1
.695
. 0964
Block by Condition
by Subject(Group)
1691.90
129
13.115


50
above studies of anticipation during nonaversive
anticipation (Simons, et al., 1979; Klorman & Ryan, 1980),
HR is primarily deceleratory.
Summary
Psychophysiological measures of heart rate (HR), skin
conductance responding (SCR), corrugator electromyography
(CEMG), and zygomatic electromyography (ZEMG) have all been
used as indices of emotional psychophysiology. Alone, each
of these measures has been associated with various
psychological phenomenon. For example, SCR has been
associated with mental effort, attentive movements or
attitudes, painful stimuli, variations in respiratory rate,
along with emotional arousal and various other psychological
phenomenon (Cacioppo & Tassinary, 1990). Increased heart
rate has also been associated with various psychological
phenomenon including startle, mental effort, and defensive
responding ^Cacioppo & Tassinary, 1990). In addition,
corrugator electromyography has been associated with
concentration as well as unpleasant emotional experience
(Cacioppo, Petty, & Morris, 1985).
Because changes in heart rate, skin conductance, and
facial EMG have all been found to be associated with
psychological phenomenon other than emotional experience,
changes in one of these variables is not necessarily
indicative of emotional experience. However, examination of
multiple variables over time has revealed specific


Heart Rate (Beats per Minute)
1.2
No-Shock
Shock
Time (Half Seconds)
Figure C-2 Heart Rate Change Scores in RHD Ss during Shock Task
189


Table B-8 Results of Neuropsychological Testing for RHP Patients
ID
WAIS-R
INFO
WAIS-R
SIM
DIGIT
SPAN
WMS-R
Orient
WMS-R LOG
MEM I & II
WMS-R VIS
REPRO I & II
NEGLECT
FACIAL
RECOGN
APHASIA
SCORE
R1
SS = 12
SS = 11
4/4
13
88/42
34/26
No
SEVERE
10/99.4
R2
SS = 11
SS = 5
7/5
13
21/18
8/10
Neg, Ext
SEVERE
9.7/96.2
R3
SS = 10
SS = 5
5/5
14
5/4
34/10
Neg, Ext
SEVERE
9.65/96.7
R4
SS = 16
SS = 11
6/4
14
53/53
54/73
No
BORDERLINE
10/100
R6
SS = 10
SS = 9
4/2
12
29/19
15/23
Ext
BORDERLINE
10/95.8
R7
SS = 5
SS=4
7/2
11
74/46
20/6
No
WNL
9.1/93.4
R8
SS = 10
SS = 7
5/4
14
11/15
19/11
Neg, Ext
SEVERE
9.95/98.9
R9
SS = 8
SS = 7
6/2
11
80/64
2/1
Neg, Ext
SEVERE
8.85/95.9
Rll
SS = 6
SS = 6
7/4
14
90/92
95/59
No
WNL
10/100
R12
SS = 6
SS-9
6/4
13
9/10
50/10
?Neg, Ext
SEVERE
10/99.4
R13
SS = 10
SS = 6
7/4
14
*72/65
83/92
No
BORDERLINE
10/100
R14
SS = 10
SS=14
6/6
14
57/14
98/99
No
WNL
9.55/98.7
176


CHAPTER 3
METHODS
Subiects
A total of 48 right handed patients were included in
the study. Handedness was determined by Briggs and Nebes
(1975) abbreviated version of Annett's (1970) questionnaire.
The stroke patients were recruited through clinics,
laboratories, and medical records at Shands Teaching
Hospital at the University of Florida and the Veteran's
Administration Hospital in Gainesville. Additionally, other
subjects were recruited through neurologists, physical
therapists, and stroke clubs in the north central Florida
region. Control subjects were recruited through
laboratories at Shands Hospital and the VA, volunteer
services at the VA hospital, as well as from other local
senior groups.
All subjects were alert, cooperative, and oriented to
time, place, and person. The population consisted of four
groups; 12 patients with right hemisphere ischemic
infarctions (RHD), 12 patients with left hemisphere ischemic
infarctions (LHD), and 24 patients without neurologic
disease (12 were controls for the RHD group and 12 were
controls for the LHD group). Attempts were made to match
sex, age, and level of education across groups. There were
69


Heart Rate (Beats per Minute)
1
-1.5
Time (Half Seeonds)
No-Reward
Reward
Figure C-6 Heart Rate Change Scores in LHD Ss during Reward Task
211


261
Tomkins, S. (1963). Affect, imagery, and consciousness: The
Negative affects. Vol. 2. New York: Springer.
Tranel, D. T. (1983). The effects of monetary incentive and
frustrative nonreward on heart rate and electrodermal
activi. Psychophysiology. 20, 652-657.
Tranel, D. T. & Damasio, H. (1994). Neuroanatomical
correlates of electrodermal skin conductance
responses. Psychophysiology. 31. 427-438.
Tucker, D. M. (1981) Lateral brain function, emotion, and
conceptualization. Psychological Bulletin. 89. 19-46.
Tucker, D. M., Roth, R. S., Arneson, B. A., & Buckingham, V.
(1977). Right-hemisphere activation during stress.
Neuropsvchologia, 15, 697-700.
Tucker, D. M., Stenslie, C. E., Roth, R. S., & Shearer, S.
L. (1981). Right frontal lobe activation and right
hemisphere performance decrement during a depressed
mood. Achieves of General Psychiatry. 38. 169-174.
Tucker, D. M., Watson, R. T., & Heilman, K. M. (1977).
Affective discrimination and evocation in patients with
right parietal disease. Neurology. 27, 947-950.
Van Lancker, D., & Sidtis, J. J. (1992). The identification
of affective-prosodic stimuli by left and right
hemisphere damaged subjects: All errors are not created
equal. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research.
Vrana, S. R., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lange, P. J. (1986). Fear
imagery and text processing. Psychophysiology. 23.
247-253.
Vrana, S. R., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (1989).
Processing fearful and neutral sentences: Memory
and heart rate change. Cognition and Emotion. 3.,
179-195.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development
and validation of brief measures of positive and
negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 54. 1063-1070.
Weinberger, D. A., Schwartz, G. E. (1979). Low-anxious,
high-anxious,and repressive coping styles: psychometric
patterns and behavioral and physiological responses to
stress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88. 369-380.


2
responding, facial behavior, and verbal report were measured
during "in vivo" affective situations.
Before discussing the experiments further, a brief
overview of the literature is provided. The review includes
prominent theories of emotion which have stemmed from the
works of James (1884/1922), Lange (1922), and Cannon (1927).
Moreover, theories of hemispheric specialization of emotion
are provided. Specifically, two predominant
neuropsychological theories of emotion are explored: (1)
the global right hemisphere theory which states that the
right hemisphere is responsible for affective processing;
and (2) the bivalent view which conceptualizes the right
hemisphere as predominant for negative emotions and the left
hemisphere as predominant for positive emotions. In
addition, studies of hemispheric differences in emotional
evaluation, expression, arousal, and mood are discussed.
Lastly, an overview of emotional psychophysiology is
presented.
Theories of Emotion
The quest to understand emotion has stimulated the
development of many theories and much empirical data over
the past century. According to Kleinginna and Kleinginna
(1981) the numerous definitions of emotion complicate
research in emotion. After an extensive review of emotional
definitions, they classified psychological definitions of
emotions into 11 non-mutually exclusive categories on the


217
Table C-46 T-Tests of Block Differences in Recoded Range
Corrected SCR during the Reward Task
Block
Mean Diff.
DF
T-Value
P-Value
Block 1, Block 2
3.823
46
2.727
. 0090
Block 1, Block 3
3.492
46
1.923
. 0607
Block 1, Block 4
2.800
46
1.432
. 1588
Block 2, Block 3
- .332
46
- .328
. 7446
Block 2, Block 4
-1.023
46
- .899
.3732
Block 3, Block 4
- .691
46
- .643
.5236
Table C-47 T-Tests of Condition Differences in Recoded Range
Corrected SCR by Block during the Reward Task
Blocks
Mean
DF
T-Value
P-Value
Diff.
Block
1
5.681
46
3.172
. 0027
Block
2
-1.039
46
- 654
.5163
Block
3
-2.024
46
-1.199
.2365
Block
4
- .140
46
- .060
. 9522


156
emotion. According to the global theory of emotion, RHD
subjects are expected to display impairment in emotional
processing of all types, whereas according to the bivalent
view, RHD patients display a deficit in processing emotional
content with a negative or unpleasant valence. Thus, the
overall finding that RHD patients in this study have
decreased responding during the shock condition is
supportive of both theories.
However, the RHD and LHD subjects did not differ
statistically from one another during the shock condition.
This finding is inconsistent with both the global and
bivalent views of emotion. Additionally, this finding is
also contradictory with previous literature (i.e., Heilman
et al., 1978). In previous studies, emotional slides (i.e.,
Zoccolitti et al., 1982; Meadows & Kaplan, 1994) and pain
(Heilman et al., 1978) have been used in the past to elcit
emotion. The present study differs in the use of an
anticipatory paradigm.
Some of the above studies have found that LHD patients
are hyperaroused and show increased SCR in response to
unpleasant emotional experience (Heilman, et al., 1978). In
this study LHD patients had SCRs that were smaller during
the shock condition, but not significantly different from
the control subjects. This replicates previous findings
(Morrow et al., 1981; Meadwos and Kaplan, 1994).


32
Robinson and his colleagues have investigated
depressive symptoms following stroke in both right and left
hemisphere patients. In two studies, Robinson and Price
(1982) and Robinson et al. (1984) found that patients with
left hemisphere strokes were more depressed than patients
with right hemisphere strokes. Starkstein, Robinson, and
Price (1987) also noted that right hemisphere patients were
indifferent and sometimes euphoric immediately following
stroke. Additionally, Robinson and Szetela (1981) reported
that patients with traumatic brain injury, while equally as
impaired cognitively and physically, were not as depressed
as stroke patients. Consequently, frequency and severity of
depression is not solely related to amount of physical and
cognitive impairment.
Differences in mood depending on caudality (anterior
versus posterior location) of the lesions were also observed
(Robinson et al., 1984). The left anterior group showed
significantly more overall depression than the left
posterior group, whereas the right posterior group were more
depressed than right anterior group. Similarly, Starkstein
et al. (1987) reported that when depression was present in
RHD patients, it was associated with parietal lesions.
Additionally, depression was found to be correlated with
closeness of the lesion to the frontal pole (Robinson &
Szetela, 1981; Starkstein, Robinson, and Price, 1987).


175
Table B-7 Means and Standard Deviations on Neuropsychological
Testing by Group
Tests
LHD
LH NCS
RHD
RH NCS
WAIS-R,
7.25
10.58
9.50
11.00
Information
(3.33)
(3.94)
(3.00)
(3.28)
WAIS-R,
7.00
9.42
7.83
8.83
Similarities
(3.16)
(2.94)
(3.01)
(2.95)
Digit Span,
5.25
6.25
5.83
8.83
Forward
(1.66)
( .62)
(1.12)
(2.95)
Digit Span,
3.17
4.33
3.83
5.17
Backwards
(1.47)
(1.07)
(1.27)
(1.27)
WMS-R
13.45
13.92
13.08
13.92
Orientation
( .82)
( .29)
(1.65)
( .29)
WMS-R, Logical
41.92
65.58
49.08
63.00
Memory I
(34.26)
(27.44)
(32.42)
(27.09)
WMS-R, Logical
46.75
67.25
36.83
65.75
Memory II
(32.44)
(28.44)
(27.66)
(27.01)
WMS-R, Visual
61.33
77.25
42.67
76.67
Reproduction I
(31.29)
(24.31)
(33.65)
(30.42)
WMS-R, Visual
52.08
76.17
35.00
71.17
Reproduction II
(30.14)
(25.91)
(35.72)
(36.36)
WAB,
9.22
9.73
9.73
9.85
Comprehension
( 74)
( .39)
( .39)
( .21)
WAB, Aphasia
92.00
98.67
97.87
98.34
Quiotent
(8.17)
(1.07)
(2.18)
(1.31)
Note: WAIS-R scores are presented as standard scores, digit
span scores are presented as # of digits, WMS-R orientation
scores are reported as raw score with a high score of 14, WMS-
R Logical Memory and Visual Reproduction scores are presented
as percentiles based on age-related norms, WAB comprehension
is the # correct out of 10, WAB aphasia quoitent is the #
correct out of 100.


146
emotional content of the situation. Thus, the subjects'
abilities to comprehend the emotional context of these in
vivo situations is not confounded with the perceptual
problems that are common in patients with RHD.
Third, multiple response systems of emotion were
examined in the present study. Specifically, skin
conductance responding was used because it seems to be
sensitive to emotional arousal (Greenwald, et al., 1989).
Corrugator and Zygomatic EMG were examined because they have
found to be useful indicators of emotional valence
(Greenwald, et al., 1989). Additionally, heart rate was
examined because it has been found to be useful in the study
of anticipation (Lang et al., 1978). By using multiple
response systems, the presence of potential differential
breakdown, (i.e., dissociation between verbal report and
autonomic responding), could be examined following
hemispheric stroke.
Before discussing the manner by which hemispheric
strokes affected emotional experience in this study, the
data from the normal subjects is discussed. It is important
to present the data on the normal subjects first to insure
that the tasks produced data that fits with the current
knowledge base regarding the psychophysiology of emotion.
The summary of the findings based on the differential
responding in the normal subjects is presented below,


249
Caltagirone, C., Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., Gainotti, G.,
Mammucari, A., Pizzamiglio, L., & Zoccolatti, P.
(1989). Posed emotional facial expressions in brain
damaged patients. Cortex. 25, 653-663.
Campbell, R. (1978). Asymmetries in interpreting and
expressing a posed facial expression. Cortex, 14.,
327-342.
Cancelliere, A. B. & Kertesz, A. (1990). Lesion localization
in acquired deficits of emotional expression and
comprehension. Brain and Cognition, 13, 133-147.
Cannon, W. B. (1927). The James-Lange theory of emotion: a
critical examination and alternative theory. American
Journ of Psychology, 39. 106-124. Reprinted in M.
Arnold (Ed.), The Nature of Emotion. Baltimore:
Penguin, 1968.
Cicone, M., Wapner, W., & Gardner, H. (1980). Sensitivity to
emotional expressions and situations in organic
patients. Cortex. 16. 145-158.
Damasio, H. Y Damasio, A. R. (1989). Lesion analysis in
neuropsychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Darwin, C. (1872/1965). The expression of emotion in man
and animals, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
(Original work published 1872).
Davidson, R. J. (1985) Affect, cognition, and
hemisphericspecialization. In C. E. Izard, J.
Kagan, & R. B. Zajonc (Eds.), emotions, cognition,
and behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Davidson, R. J. Parsing affective space: Perspectives from
neuropsychology and psychophysiology. Submitted for
publication.
Davidson, R., Ekman, P., Saron, C., Senulis, J., & Friesen,
W. (1990) Approach/withdrawal and cerebral asymmetry.
Emotional expression and brain physiology. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 330-341.
Davidson, R. J. & Fox N. A. (1982) Asymmetrical brain
activity discriminates between positive and negative
affective stimuli in ten month old infants. Science.
218. 1235-1237.
Davidson, R. J. & Schwartz, G. E. (1976). Patterns of
cerebral lateralization during cardiac biofeedback


235
Table C-69 ANCOVA Table of Percentage of SCR Responses during the
Shock Task with Medication as a Covariate
SS
DF
SS
F
Sig of
F
Within and
Residual (Group)
55258.1
3
42
1315.67
Regression
544.14
1
544.14
.41
. 524
Group
8057.17
3
2685.72
2.04
. 123
Within and
Residual (Tone)
3614.77
43
84.06
Tone
2481.89
1
2481.89
29.52
. 000
Tone by Group
1630.97
3
543.66
6.47
. 001


262
Weddell, R. Miller, R. Trevarthen, C. (1990). Voluntary-
emotional facial expressions in patients with focal
cerebral lesions. Neuropsvchologia, 28, 49-60.
Weintraub, S., Mesulam,, M. M., & Kramer, L. (1981).
Disturbances in prosody. Archives of Neurology.
38. 742-744.
Wundt, W. (1896). Grundriss der Psvchologie. Translated by
C. J. Judd.
Yokoyama, K., Jennings, R., Ackles, P., Hood, P., & Boiler,
F. (1987). Lack of heart rate changes during an
attention demanding task after right hemisphere
lesions. Neurology, 37. 748-755.
York, D. J., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (1989) Imagery
of affective sentences: Facial and visceral responses.
Psychophysiology. 26. S67.
Zoccolatti, P., Scabini, D., & Violani, C. (1982).
Electrodermal responses in patients with
unilateral brain damage. Journal of Clinical
Neuropsychology. 4, 143-150.


Subgroup Data
To better understand how specific lesion locations
134
affect skin conductance responding, attempts were made to
examine subgroups of the lesioned sample. Within the RHD
group, there were 2 subjects with primarily anterior
lesions, 3 subjects with posterior lesions, 5 subjects with
mixed lesions, 1 subject with corrupt SCR data, and 1
subject whose CT scan could not be obtained, but a report of
the scan stated that the patient had a temporal/parietal
infarct. In the LHD group, 1 subject had an anterior
lesion, 1 had a primarily anterior lesion, 6 had posterior
lesions, 1 had a primarily posterior lesion, 3 had mixed
lesions. Since dividing the groups into anterior,
posterior, and mixed groups created groups that were too
small for proper analysis, attempts were made to calculate
prediction intervals and to examine individual differences
in skin conductance responding. Unfortunately the
prediction intervals were too large and included non
responders .
Tranel and Damasio (1994) found that RHD patients with
attenuation or abolition of SCR when viewing emotional
pictures had damage involving the right supramarginal gyrus
and angular gyrus. Thus, subjects were divided into two new
groups; anterior and posterior. Subjects in the anterior
group had lesions that were previously considered anterior
or mixed (not including areas 39 and 40). Subjects in the


218
Table C-48 ANOVA Table of Corrugator EMG during the Reward Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
.233
3
. 078
. 800
. 5003
Subject(Group)
4.265
44
.097
Block
.098
3
. 033
1.067
.3654
Block by Group
.388
9
. 043
1.401
. 1940
Block by
Subject(Group)
4.060
132
. 031
Tone
. 020
1
. 020
.397
. 5318
Tone by Group
. 084
3
. 028
.558
. 6454
Tone by
Subject(Group)
2.210
44
. 050
Block by Tone
. 086
3
. 029
.599
. 6170
Block by Tone
by Group
.602
9
. 067
1.397
. 1956
Block by Tone
by
Subject(Group)
6.319
132
.048


4
object stimulates one or more sense organs relaying afferent
impulses into the cortex. Next, cortical efferents send
information to skeletal and visceral musculature producing
complex changes. Lastly, sensory information from the
affected musculature is projected back to the cortex.
Perception of this sensory information produces the
experience of emotion. In the early 20th century, the
James-Lange theory predominated the study of emotion (Izard,
1977) .
In 1927, Cannon presented five criticisms of James-
Lange' s hypotheses that perception of autonomic/visceral
changes are responsible for the experience of emotion.
First, Cannon cited evidence that spinal cord transections
in dogs, in which the sensations of the viscera were
separated from the CNS, did not alter emotional experience.
Additionally, he stated that cats who had their entire
sympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system removed
showed all the manifestations of rage when presented with a
dog (i.e., hissing, growling, and retraction of the ears)
except the cats did not raise the hairs on their backs.
Second, Cannon pointed out that the same visceral changes
occur during sympathetic arousal even though different
emotion states may be experienced. Additionally,
sympathetic arousal produces similar changes in non-
emotional states such as fever or exposure to cold. Third,
Cannon argued that the viscera are relatively insensitive


168
choose the specific descriptors for the schedule.
Preliminary analyses revealed that 10 terms were sufficient
for each scale. Undergraduate subjects were asked to
complete the schedule, reporting their affect for moment,
today, past few days, past few weeks, year, and in general.
Internal consistency and intercorrelations range from .86 to
.90 for PA and .84 to .87 for NA. As expected the
correlation between PA and NA is low, ranging from -.12 to -
.23. Test-retest reliability after 1 week were .47 to .68
for PA and .39 to .71 for NA. Correlations with Hopkins
Symptom Checklist, Beck Depression Inventory, and State -
Trait Anxiety Scale (state anxiety) is .51 to .74 for NA and
-.19 to .36 for PA.


122
each group for CEMG, ZGL, and ZGR are presented in Tables 4-
9, 4-10, and 4-11 below.
Table 4-9 Means and Standard Deviations of Corrugator EMG
Comparing the Shock and Reward Tasks
Shock
Reward
LHD
.004 (.108)
.004 (.138)
LH NCS
-.0061 (.084)
.015 (.104)
RHD
-.030 (.190)
-.072 (.565)
RH NCS
-.014 (.171)
-.031 (.163)
Table 4-10 Means and Standard Deviations of Left-Sided
Zygomatic EMG Comparing the Shock and Reward Tasks
Shock
Reward
LHD
.007 (.169)
.009 (.187)
LH NCS
-.013 (.084)
.028 (.106)
RHD
.009 (.184)
-.009 (.170)
RH NCS
.038 (.141)
.026 (.412)
Table 4-11 Means and Standard Deviations of Right-Sided
Zygomatic EMG Comparing the Shock and Reward Tasks
Shock
Reward
LHD
-.002 (.147)
-.019 (.147)
LH NCS
-.007 (.096)
.031 (.112)
RHD
-.006 (.156)
.003 (.110)
RH NCS
.048 (.159)
.005 (.193)
No main effects of group, block, or task or
interactions were revealed for the analyses of CEMG, ZGL,
and ZGR.
Self-assessment manikin. The SAM ratings for the shock
and reward conditions were directly compared by creating new


6
emotional experience accompanied by behavior and
physiological indices of emotion.
Later scientists elaborated on Cannon's theory. Papez
(1937) postulated that a circuit of emotion exists that
relays information to the hypothalamus from the anterior
thalamus, cingulate cortex, and hippocampus. He posited
that emotion originates in the hippocampal formation and is
relayed through the above circuit to the cortex. He
described the cingulate gyrus as the receptive cortical
region for emotion. About a decade later, MacLean (1949,
1952) described the limbic system as a group of
phylogenetically old cortical structures that are involved
in emotion.
More recently, LeDoux (1989) has argued that emotion
and cognition are mediated by separate though interacting
neural systems. According to LeDoux, the amygdala is the
major component of the brain's affective processing system,
whereas the hippocampus is critically involved in cognitive
processing. Both affective and cognitive computations can
occur without conscious awareness. According to LeDoux,
affective computations occur via thalamo-amygdala
projections which process the affective significance of
simple sensory cues, whereas the cortico-amygdala pathway
processes complex affective stimuli. The thalamo-amygdala
projections are adaptive because this pathway often leads
directly to motor responses with brief processing time,


258
Reiman,E. M., Fusselman, M. J., Fox, P. T., Raichle, M. E.
(1989) Neuroanatomic correlates of anticipatory-
anxiety. Science. 243. 1071-1074.
Reuter-Lorenz, P. & Davidson, R. J. (1981). differential
contributions of the two cerebral hemispheres for
perception of happy and sad faces. Neuropsvchologia,
19. 609-614.
Richardson, C., Bowers, D., Eyeler, L., Heilman, K. M.
(1992). Asymmetrical control of facial emotional
expression depends on the means of elicitation.
Presented at meeting of International Neuropsychology
Society, San Diego.
Rinn, W. E. (1984). The neuropsychology of facial
expression: A review of neurological and
psychological mechanisms for producing facial
expressions. Psychological Bulletin, 95., 52-77.
Robinson, R. G., Kubos, K. L., Starr, L.B., Rao, K., Price,
T. R. (1984). Mood disorders in stroke patients.
Brain. 107.81-93.
Robinson, R. G. & Price, T. R. (1982) Post-stroke
depressive disorders: a follow up study of 103
outpatients. Stroke. 13. 635-641.
Robinson, R. G. & Szetela, B. (1981). Mood change following
left hemisphere brain injury. Annuals of Neurology. 9,
447-453.
Ross, E. D. (1981). The aprosodias: Functional-anatomic
organization of the affective components of language in
the right hemisphere. Annals of Neurology. 38., 561-589.
Ross, E. D., & Mesulam, M. M. (1979). Dominant language
functions of the right hemisphere? Achieves of
Neurology. 36., 144-148.
Russell (1927/1961). An outline of philosophy. Cleveland:
World.
Russell, J. A. & Mehrabian, A. (1977). Evidence for a three-
factor theory of emotion, Journal of Research in
Personality. 11. 273-294.
Sacheim, H. A., Greenberg, M S., Weiman, A. L., Gur, R. C.,
Hungerbuhler, J. P. & Geschwind, N. (1982).Hemispheric
asymmetry in the expression of positive and negative
emotion: Neurologic evidence. Achieves of Neurology.
69, 379-399.


206
Table C-34 ANOVA Table of Left-sided Zygomatic EMG for Block 1
of the Shock Task
SS'
DF
MS
F
Sig
of F
Group
. 041
3
. 0136
3.054
. 0382
Residual
. 195
44
. 0044
Table C-35 ANOVA Table of Left-sided Zygomatic EMG for Block 2
of the Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig
of F
Group
. 0303
3
. 0101
1.657
.1901
Residual
.2684
44
. 0061
Table C-36 ANOVA Table of Left-sided Zygomatic EMG for Block 3
of the Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig
of F
Group
. 0144
3
. 0048
1.543
.2167
Residual
. 1367
44
. 0031
Table C-37 ANOVA Table of Left-sided Zygomatic EMG for Block 4
of the Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig
of F
Group
. 0208
3
. 0069
1.743
.1720
Residual
. 1748
44
. 0040


106
Due to the large amount of variance found for CEMG,
ZGL, and ZGR, log transformations were conducted. The
findings were identical to the results obtained using the
raw data.
In sum, there were no significant effects between the
shock and control trials in ipsilateral corrugator EMG or
bilateral zygomatic EMG. There was a significant group by
block interaction for the left-sided zygomatic EMG variable.
Further exploration of this finding, however, revealed no
significant differences between the groups.
Self-assessment manikin. Since the self-report ratings
of valence, arousal, and dominance were determined using a
5-point SAM ratings, nonparametric statistics were used to
examine the differences by condition and by group. Wilcoxon
Tests for paired samples were used to analyze the
differences in ratings between the shock and no-shock
trials. Kruskal-Wallis Tests were used to analyze group
differences. The ratings at time 1 and time 2 were averaged
together for the analyses.
For all three variables, (i.e., valence, arousal, and
dominance) there was a significant difference in the ratings
for the shock and control trials. Within the shock
condition, subjects reported less pleasant feelings during
the shock compared to the shock-control trials [Z = -5.61, P
<.0001] (shock, mean=3.32, sd=1.29; shock-control,
mean=1.29, sd=.579). The main effect for arousal [Z = -


139
SCR Magnitude
Within the RHD group 2 subjects showed a clearly
greater SCR magnitude during the shock compared to the no
shock control (greater than 1% point). Three subjects
showed a small difference in the expected direction (less
than 1%) and one subject had greater responding during the
no-shock condition. Of the four subjects who did not
display greater SCR magnitude in the shock compared to the
shock control conditions, three subjects displayed the
expected change in verbal report and one did not.
In the LHD group, five of the subjects who were
responders demonstrated greater SCRs during the shock
compared to the no-shock conditions. Three subjects did not
have greater responding during the shock compared to the no
shock condition. One of these subjects, L12, also had a
relatively small change in verbal report ratings.
Verbal Report
Three of the RHD subjects had no or minimal change in
verbal report ratings (1 point or less between the shock and
control conditions for valence, arousal, and dominance
combined). Of those three subjects, 2 were non-responders.
One subject who had a minimal change in verbal report
ratings, displayed SCRs, but did not display a greater
percentage or magnitude of SCRs in the shock compared to the
no-shock conditions.


223
Table C-53 ANOVA Table of D1 comparing Shock and Reward Tasks
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
21.623
3
7.208
. 7057
. 5539
Subject(Group)
439.211
43
10.214
Block
11.793
3
3.930
.3313
. 8028
Block by Group
140.416
9
15.608
1.3148
.2353
Block by
Subject(Group)
1530.77
129
11.866
Condition
. 153
1
.153
. 0100
. 9208
Condition by Group
32.091
3
10.697
.6971
. 5589
Condition by
Subject(Group)
659.807
43
15.344
Block by Condition
24.706
3
8.265
. 9892
.4002
Block by Condition
by Group
43.727
9
4.859
.5836
. 8087
Block by Condition
by Subject(Group)
1074.00
129
8.326


APPENDIX A
PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASURES
Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM)
The Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) measures subjective
ratings of three independent affective dimensions which have
been derived from factor analytic studies (Hodes, Cook, &
Lang, 1985). The three dimensions include valence (pleasant
to unpleasant), arousal (aroused to calm), and control
(dominance to submission). There are both computer and
paper and pencil versions of SAM. For purposes of this
study, a paper and pencil version of SAM in which each
dimension is presented as a series of nine cartoon
characters will be used. For the valence dimension, SAMs
facial expression gradually changes from a smile to a frown.
Arousal is denoted by increased activity in the abdomen to
no activity and wide eyes to closed eyes. Control is
represented from a very large character who gradually
shrinks in size to a very small character.
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) is
comprised of two 10-item mood scales. Using factor analysis
positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) factors were
identified. Principle components analysis was employed to
167


118
(mean=10.426, sd=15.102) than the reward compared to reward-
control trials (mean=1.170, sd=9.S57).
The interaction was explored using separate t-tests
with Bonferroni correction for the shock and reward tasks.
Since there were no significant differences between the LH
NCS and the RH NCS during the shock task or the reward task,
the groups were combined. Results revealed that during the
shock task the LHD group, (mean=.833, sd=7.334) had a
smaller difference between the percentage of responses for
the shock and control trials compared to the CONS
(mean=18.33, sd=16.73), [T(l,34) = -3.443, P < .01], but not
the RHD group (mean=3.636, sd=5.95), [T(l,21) = -1.000, P =
.3285]. The RHD group also had a significant smaller
difference in the percentage of responses greater than .02
micro sieman than CONS [T(1,33) = 32.814, P < .01] There
were no significant differences between any of the groups
for the reward minus reward control variable. Tables of the
t-tests, Table C-58 and C-59, are presented in Appendix C.
A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
conducted to compare SCR magnitude between the two tasks.
Group (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS) was the between subjects
factor and task (shock minus no-shock and reward minus no
reward) and block (one to four) were the within subject
factors.
There was a main effect for group [F(3,43) = 4.42, P <
.01] along with a main effect for task (F(l,43) = 24.82, P <


147
followed by a discussion of the results with the stroke
patients.
Differential Responding in Normal Subjects
Shock Condition
Heart rate
In the normal subjects, heart rate was expected to be
greater during the shock compared to the no-shock condition.
Additionally, a heart rate wave form, with an initial
deceleration, followed by an acceleration, and then a second
deceleration was expected during the shock condition. This
wave form was expected to be attenuated during the no-shock
control trials.
Heart rate did not differentiate the shock from the
control trials within the normal controls. There are
several possible explanations for the lack of significance
between the shock and control trials.
First, heart rate tends to differ depending on the
response-set of the subjects. For example, heart rate wave
forms have been found to be much more pronounced when
subjects are supposed to respond in some way at the end of
the anticipation period (Lang, Ohman, Simons, 1978). In a
recent study, when subjects were asked to react to a noxious
noise which followed a 6 second warning cue, they had
greater heart rate decelerations during the anticipation
period than subjects who were not asked to respond in any
way (Patrick & Berthot, 1995). This study, however,


196
Table C-15 ANOVA Table of D2 during the Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
19.510
3
6.503
1.129
.3479
Subject(Group)
247.622
43
5.759
Tone
6.757
1
6.757
. 835
.3660
Tone by Group
27.798
3
9.266
1.144
. 3419
Tone by
Subject(Group)
348.099
43
8.095
Block
6.425
3
2.142
. 563
. 6401
Block by Group
80.236
9
8.915
2.345
. 0175
Block by
Subject(Group)
490.355
129
3.801
Tone by Block
10.192
3
3,397
. 644
. 5879
Tone by Block
by Group
78.850
9
8.761
1.662
. 1047
Tone by Block
by
Subject(Group)
680.128
129
5.272


60
no shock (or reward) would be presented. During these 5-
minute anticipatory intervals, subjects were administered
brief mood questionnaires (i.e., Positive and Negative
Affect Schedule and Self-Assessment Manikin).
The use of the 5-minute paradigm in Experiment 2 is
more suitable for obtaining self-report information, whereas
the use of 6-second two-stimulus paradigm in Experiment 1 is
more suitable for obtaining reliable brief
psychophysiological indices of emotion.
Hypotheses and Predictions
Overall Hypotheses
According to the global right hemisphere model, emotion
is modulated predominantly by the right hemisphere.
Consequently, the global model hypothesizes that patients
with RHD will display attenuated responsivity, relative to
the LHD group, across all three response domains (arousal,
facial, and verbal report) in both negative and positive
emotion-evoking situations.
In contrast, the bivalent model posits that
positive/approach emotions are mediated by the left
hemisphere and negative/avoidance emotions are mediated by
the right hemisphere. According to the bivalent model, the
responses of the RHD and LHD patients would vary as a
function of valence (positive-negative nature) of the
induced emotion. Specifically, the RHD group would show
diminished responses in all three response domains (arousal,


193
Table C-7 ANOVA Table of D1 during the Shock Condition of the
Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig of
F
Group
10.978
3
3 659
.4798
.6980
Subj ect(Group)
327.952
43
7.627
Block
4.743
3
1.581
.3504
. 7889
Block by Group
63.939
9
7.104
1.574
. 1295
Block by
Subject(Group)
582.118
129
4.512
Table C-8 ANOVA Table of D1 during the No-Shock Condition of the
Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig of
F
Group
48.198
3
16.066
3.376
. 0268
Subj ect(Group)
204.647
43
4.759
Block
9.126
3
3.042
. 849
.4695
Block by Group
69.946
9
7.772
2.169
. 0282
Block by
Subject(Group)
462.121
129
3.582
Table C-9 T-tests of Group Differences in D1 during the No-Shock
Condition of the Shock Task
Mean
Diff .
DF
T-Value
P-Value
LHD,
CONS
- 748
33
-1.802
. 0807
LHD,
RHD
-1.144
22
-2.605
. 0162
RHD,
CONS
- 396
33
-1.015
.3174


212
Table C-40 ANOVA Table of Mean HR Change from Baseline during
the Reward Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG of ¡
F
Group
2.94891
3
. 98297
.76216
.5215
Subject(Group)
55.45809
43
1.28972
Tone
1.55279
1
1.55279
. 96105
.3324
Tone by Group
2.06203
3
.68734
.42541
. 7358
Tone by
Subject
(Group)
69.47577
43
1.61572
Table C-41 ANOVA Table of D1 during the Reward Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIF
of F
Group
75.56907
3
25.18969
1.3618
.2672
Subject(Group)
795.37279
43
18.49704
Tone
. 00002
1
.00002
.00000
. 9988
Tone by Group
10.11084
3
3.37028
.38576
.7638
Tone by
Subject(Group)
375.67775
43
8.73669
Block
8.88889
3
2.96296
.45990
.7108
Block by Group
37.20585
9
4.13398
.64166
.7596
Block by
Subject(Group)
831.09682
129
6.44261
Tone by Block
8.23695
3
2.74565
.54872
. 6499
Tone by Block
by Group
32.81069
9
3.64563
.72859
. 6820
Tone by Block
by
Subject(Group)
645.47852
129
5.00371


I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the deqree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Dawn Bowers, Chair
Associate Professor of Clinical
and Health Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
[. Bauer, Cochair
Russell M.
Associate Prof'essor of Clinical
and Health Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
}
'Kenneth Heilman
Professor of Clinical and Health
Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Eileen B. Fennell
Professor of Clinical and Health
Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Margaret Bradley
Associate Scientist of Psychology


137
significant differences between the RHD and LHD groups
[T(l,15) = .595, P = .5609] .
The SCRs of the PHD subjects with clear neglect (n=3),
excluding the subjects with evidence of extinction only,
were compared to the LHD group and the CONs. In this
analysis, the RHD group was not significantly different from
the CONs [T(1,25) = 1.99, P = .0566], although the
difference approached significance. However, the mean for
the RHD group with neglect was extremely small (mean=1.667,
sd=2.887) compared to the overall mean of the RHD subjects
(mean=5.15, sd=4.56), suggesting that subjects with neglect
demonstrate a greater impairment in SCR responding in
anticipation of shock. As will be described below, two of
the three subjects with neglect were non-responders. Since
the number of subjects with neglect is quite small, however,
the above findings need to be interpreted with caution.
Individual Case Studies
To examine individual differences in SCR and the
dissociation between SCR and verbal report, each subjects
percentage of SCRs and magnitude of SCRs during the shock
and no-shock conditions, along with verbal report change
scores are presented in Table 4-13 and 4-14.
Non-Responders
Within the RHD group, 36% of the subjects (4/11) were
non-responders. Of the 4 non responders in the RHD group, 3
had lesions involving the supramarginal gyrus and angular


64
4. During prize anticipation, zygomatic EMG reactivity will
be similar or greater for LHD compared to NHD patients,
whereas RHD patients will show smaller zygomatic EMG
compared to NHD patients. For LHD and NHD groups,
zygomatic EMG will be greater for prize compared to no
reward trials. However, differences in zygomatic EMG
will be attenuated between prize and no prize control
trials in RHD patients.
B) Bivalent Emotion Model: According to this view, patients
with RHD should demonstrate attenuated anxiety during the
shock anticipation condition (relative to NHD controls), and
either normal or enhanced pleasant feelings during
anticipatory reward condition. In contrast, patients with
LHD should demonstrate attenuated pleasant feelings during
the anticipatory reward condition (relative to NHD subjects)
and either normal or enhanced negative feelings during the
anticipatory shock task. These results may be most
pronounced in patients with anterior-extending lesions.
Specific predictions are as follows:
1. During shock anticipation, the LHD subjects will have
greater or similar HR responding compared to the NHD
group, whereas RHD subjects will have smaller HR
responding relative to NHD subjects. Additionally, LHD
and NHD patients will display greater HR responding
during shock relative to no shock trials, whereas HR
responding in RHD patients will not differ between


TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
ABSTRACT vi
CHAPTERS
1 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 1
Theories of Emotion 2
Hemispheric Assymetry of Emotion 15
Emotional Psychophysiology 38
Critical Issues 51
2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 56
Overview of Experimental Design 59
Hypotheses and Predicitions 60
3 METHODS 6 9
Subjects 69
Baseline Evaluation 73
Experiment 1 74
Experiment 2 83
Design Issues 85
4 RESULTS 8 8
Group Data 88
Subgroup Data 134
Individual Case Studies 137
5 DISCUSSION 145
Differential Responding in Normal
Subjects 147
Group Differences in Emotional
Responding 155
Global versus Bivalent Models of
Emotion 159
Neuroanatomic Correlates 161
Limitations of the Study 163
Future Directions 165
IV


131
valence only [Z = -2.47, P < .05] Arousal ratings were not
significantly different between reward and control trials [Z
= -1.83, P = .067]. Also, dominance ratings were not
significantly different [Z = -1.15, P = .249] .
There were also no significant group differences. See
Table C-79 in Appendix C for details. Exploration of the
main effect of condition for valence revealed that subjects
reported feeling more pleasant during the reward (mean=1.23)
compared to the reward-control trial (mean=1.62). The trend
towards significance for arousal revealed that subjects
reported feeling less calm during the reward (mean=4.21,
sd=1.12) compared to the control (mean=4.53, sd=.997) trial.
Summary of results of reward task. In sum, subjects
reported more positive affect and more pleasantness during
the reward compared to the no-reward condition. There were
no differences in ratings of negative affect, arousal, or
dominance between the reward and no-reward conditions.
Additionally, there were no group differences in the ratings
of NA, PA, valence, arousal, or dominance.
Shock versus reward
Positive and negative affect schedule. The shock and
reward condition were directly compared by creating new
variables such that the control (no-shock and no-reward)
ratings were subtracted from the respective stimulus (shock
and reward) ratings. Repeated measures ANOVAs were
conducted using group as the between subjects factor and


204
Table C-32 ANOVA Table of Right-sided Zygomatic EMG during the
Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
. 026
3
. 009
.365
.7788
Subject(Group)
1.038
44
. 024
Block
. 023
3
. 008
1.148
.3321
Block by Group
. 097
9
. Oil
1.641
. 1100
Block by
Subject(Group)
. 866
132
. 007
Tone
. 007
1
. 007
. 952
.3346
Tone by Group
. 051
3
. 017
2.35
. 0856
Tone by
Subject(Group)
.316
44
. 007
Block by Tone
. 032
3
. Oil
. 982
.4035
Block by Tone
by Group
. 101
9
. Oil
1.035
.4157
Block by Tone
by
Subject(Group)
1.438
132
. Oil


Table B-5 Neurological Information for the RHD Group
SEX
AGE
YEARS
OF
EDUC.
BRODMANN'S AREAS INVOLVED
IN CVA
LESION
LOCATION
MONTHS
SINCE
CVA
R1
M
73
18
3 9, 22, 21, 20, 40, 3,2,1,
6, 4, 46, 9, 11, 47, 45,
44
Mixed
216
R2
M
73
14
6, 7, 40(mixed), 8, SPWM,
STWM
Mixed
192
R3
M
74
13
22, 37, 39, 40(mixed),
STWM
Posterior
12
R4
M
64
12
3,1,2, 6, 44
Primarily
Anterior
14
R6
M
54
8
3,1,2, 19, 21(posterior),
22(posterior), 37, 39,
40(mixed), Medial
temporal, SPWM
Posterior
46
R7
M
76
10
4, 6, corona radiata
Mixed
43
R8
M
64
8
3,1,2, 7, 19, 22, 39, 40,
41, 42, insular cortex,
medial temporal, STWM
Posterior
62
R9
M
60
8
3,1,2, 6, 9, 10, 24, 25,
32, 44, 45, 46, striatum,
internal capsule, corona
radiata
Primarily
Anterior
8
Rll
M
57
13
3,1,2, 6, 22 (anterior) ,
41, 42, insular cortex,
striatum
Primarily
Anterior
51
R12
M
48
12
Film not available
18
R13
M
65
15
21(mixed), 22(mixed), 37,
38, 44, 45, 40(anterior),
striatum, corona radiata
Mixed
15

R14
M
49
22
3,1,2, 6, 21 (anterior) ,
40(anterior), 41, 42,
insular cortex, internal
capsule, striatum, STWM
Mixed
54


233
Table C-67 ANOVA Table of Right-sided Zygomatic EMG compairng
Shock and Reward Tasks
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig of
F
Group
. 057
3
. 019
1.428
.2473
Subject(Group)
.585
44
. 013
Condition
. 003
1
. 003
.204
. 6534
Condition by
Group
. 109
3
. 036
2.211
. 1002
Condition by
Subject(Group)
. 722
44
. 016
Block
. 027
3
. 009
.385
. 7640
Block by Group
.233
9
. 026
1.101
.3667
Block by
Subject(Group)
3.107
132
. 024
Condition by
Block
. 039
3
. 013
.625
.6004
Condition by
Block by Group
. 183
9
. 020
.990
.4517
Condition by
Block by
Subject(Group)
2.716
132
. 021


138
gyrus (areas 40 and 39, respectively). The fourth non
responder, Rll, did not have a lesion involving areas 39 and
40. Rll, however, reported only a small change (1 point
total on valence, arousal, and dominance) in emotional
experience during the shock compared to the control
condition. No clear pattern of neurological impairment was
apparent in the 4/12 (33%) of LHD subjects who were non
responders .
Percentage of SCRs
Of the RHD subjects who had responses, all but one,
R14, demonstrated a greater percentage of responses during
the shock compared to the no-shock condition. Although R14
did not demonstrate greater SCRs during shock compared to
the no-shock condition, he reported increased
unpleasantness, arousal, and loss of control during shock
compared to the no-shock control.
Within the LHD group, 5 subjects who were responders,
displayed a greater percentage of responses during the shock
compared to the no-shock conditions. One LHD subject had
the same percentage of responses during the shock compared
to no-shock trials and two subjects had a greater number of
responses during the no-shock compared to the shock trials.
All three of these subjects who did not display the expected
difference in the percentage of SCRs during shock compared
to the no-shock condition reported the expected changes in
emotional experience.


15
responses, it is unknown whether there is a disconnection
between experience and motor output or whether the person is
not experiencing the emotion as completely as someone who
reacted with all three response systems.
Hemispheric Asymmetry of Emotion
Along with general psychological theories of emotion,
investigators have examined the organization of emotion in
the brain. Historically, emotion has been associated with
the limbic system (Papez, 1937; MacLean, 1952). More
recently, neuropsychologists have examined the role of the
cerebral hemispheres in modulating emotional behavior.
Research involving neurologically impaired patients has
aided in developing an understanding of how various domains
of emotional behavior (i.e., evaluation, expression,
arousal) are disrupted by focal lesions of the left and
right hemispheres. Based on some clinical studies, along
with findings from normal individuals (see review, Heilman,
Bowers, & Valenstein in press), inferences have been made
regarding the neural networks that might underlie different
aspects of emotional behavior including evaluation,
expression, arousal, and experience.
Early observations of individuals following hemispheric
damage revealed differences in mood reactions depending on
whether the left or right hemisphere was involved.
Babinski (1914) was one of the first to note that patients
with right hemisphere damage (RHD) appeared indifferent or


68
RHD will report no differences in anxiety between shock
and no shock trials.
2. During prize anticipation, the RHD will report more or
equal positive emotion compared to the NHD patients,
whereas LHD subjects will report less more positive
emotions than the NHD group. Also, RHD and NHD
subjects will report more positive emotion during prize
compared to no reward control trials. LHD patients
will report no differences in positive affect between
prize and no reward trials.


54
results imply that there is a defect in the mediation output
systems, such that behaviorally the patient responds, but
without the corresponding subjective experience of emotion.
Due to the inability in directly measuring subjective
experience, the ability to interpret discordance in response
systems is weakened. To illustrate, two groups, A and B,
are investigated during emotion-eliciting experiences. Both
A and B verbally report experiencing emotion. However,
group A does not exhibit psychophysiological measures
indicative of emotion. Are the subjective emotional
experiences of group A and B different? There are two
possible interpretations: (1) they are experiencing
qualitatively different emotional experiences, such that
group A's experience of emotion is more "cognitive" than
group B's experience, or (2) they are experiencing the same
emotional experiences, but group A has a problem with the
feedforward system of emotional psychophysiological
responding. Because interpretation includes inferences
about subjective experiences, neither interpretation can be
proven correct or rejected as invalid. It is unclear, at
this time, how patients with unilateral damage experience
emotion based on the interaction of these three response
systems. Specifically, it is unknown whether unilateral
lesions would produce concordance or discordance of
emotional experience.


120
during the shock task was significantly greater than the
reward task for block 1 [T(l,46) = 4.724, P < .0001] and 4
[T(1,46) = 2.925, P < .01], but not 2 [T(l,46) = 1.59, P =
.1195] and 3 [T(l,46) = .433, P = .6671]. A table of the
t-tests, Table C-62, is presented in Appendix C. A means
table is presented below.
Table 4-8 Means and Standard Deviations of Recoded Range-
Corrected SCR Comparing Shock and Reward Tasks by Block
Shock
Reward
Block One
11.35 (16.71)
-5.68 (12.28)
Block Two
4.75 (14.39)
1.04 (10.89)
Block Three
3.09 (14.62)
2.02 (11.57)
Block Four
8.10 (16.18)
.140 (15.91)
Independent t-tests with Bonferroni corrections were
used to examine the task by group effect. Separate t-tests
comparing groups were conducted for each task. Since there
were no significant differences between the LH NCS and the
RH NCS during shock task [T(l,22) = -1.209, P = .2393] or
reward task [T(l,22) = .082, P = .9355], the two groups were
combined. Examination of the shock condition revealed that
the LHD group (mean=1.735, sd=6.545) had a significantly
smaller difference between the shock and control trials
compared to the CONS (mean=12.43, sd=12.29), [T(l,34) = -
2.809, P < .01]. The RHD patients (mean=.127, sd=3.582)
also significantly smaller differences between the shock and
control trials when compared with the CONS, [T(l,33) =
3.234, P < .01]. The LHD and RHD groups did not differ from


46
sets of facial expression and asking subjects to relive a
past emotional experience produced similar autonomic
changes, i.e., increases in HR and SCR (Ekman, Levenson, &
Friesen, 1983; Levenson, Ekman, and Friesen, 1990). These
authors concluded that there are biologically innate affect
programs which, when activated, provide instructions to
multiple response systems including skeletal muscles,
facial muscles, and the autonomic nervous system.
Taken together, the above research suggests that
zygomatic EMG increases with reported pleasantness, and
somewhat with extreme unpleasantness. Corrugator EMG
increases with reported unpleasantness. Skin conductance
responses are positively related to reported experience of
arousal, which can be induced through pleasant or unpleasant
emotional states. Heart rate, however, is variable and
depends on many factors such as reported affect, type of
evoking stimuli, and individual differences in responding.
However, during the presentation of emotional slides, HR
acceleration is positively related to valence, but
acceleration may be associated with aversive rather than
pleasant stimuli when phobics are presented with their fear
object. During imagery, HR typically accelerates during
both pleasant and unpleasant scenes. Additionally,
voluntary facial expressions produce changes in the
autonomic nervous system consistent with other tasks used to
induce emotional experience.


18
flattened, and physiologically hypoaroused. The relevant
research is discussed below.
Evaluation of emotion
Most of the research in support of the global right
hemisphere view of emotion has arisen from investigations of
evaluation and perception of affective stimuli (i.e., facial
expression and emotional prosody). Many patients with RHD
have impairments in identifying and discriminating facial
expressions. This research was initially conducted by
DeKosky, Heilman, Bowers, and Valenstein (1980) and has been
consistently replicated across other laboratories (Cicone,
Wapner, & Gardner, 1980; Etcoff, 1984; Bowers, Bauer,
Coslett, & Heilman, 1985) From an historical perspective,
one critical issue was whether the RH superiority in
identifying facial expressions was secondary to the role of
the RH in mediating complex visual configurational stimuli.
Evidence against this view point comes from covariance
studies, individual case reports, and studies which find RHD
patients impaired in identifying facial affect when it has
been verbally described.
First, in covariance studies, visucperceptual ability
has been controlled for and equated statistically. In these
studies, deficits in RHD patients in recognition of
affective facial expressions have been observed above and
beyond deficits in visuoperceptual ability (Ley and Byrden,
1979; Bowers et al., 1985). Second, case descriptions have


183
Table B-14 Performance of LHD on Florida Affect Battery (percent
correct by subtest)
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8a
8b
9
L2
100
95
90
95
90
100
100
85
81/
63
80
L3
90
85
95
85
95
69
90
70
94/
63
65
L4
100
70
35
100
80
94
100
80
75/
63
80
L5
90
85
95
100
100
94
50
75
63/
44
75
L6
100
90
95
100
90
100
100
90
94/
75
95
L7
100
80
90
95
95
100
100
80
81/
75
90
L8
100
75
90
100
75
100
100
75
81/
56
90
L9
95
85
90
100
80
100
100
10
0
87/
75
85
L10
90
75
85
90
70
69
95
60
81/
13
65
Lll
70
60
70
90
55
88
95
90
94/
25
60
L12
90
70
75
90
75
100
100
85
94/
50
70
L13
85
70
85
95
80
88
90
90
94/
56
90


91
table, Table C-4 is presented in Appendix C. The means and
standard deviations for each group collapsed across tone and
block were: LHD mean=3.881, sd=13.690; LH NCS mean=14.691,
sd=27.809, RHD mean=3.895, sd=14.528; RH NCS mean=13.549,
sd=23.073.
To sum, during the psychophysiological screening
procedure, subjects had a greater heart rate D1 to the novel
tone. There were no differences between the tones in
overall heart rate, percentage of SCR responses, or amount
of skin conductance responding. Additionally, there were no
group differences found for either heart rate or skin
conductance.
Experiment 1
Experiment 1 consisted of two tasks (shock or reward).
During each condition, heart rate, skin conductance,
ipsilateral corrugator EMG, and bilateral zygomatic EMG were
recorded during a three second baseline, tone onset, and a
six second anticipation period. Within each task, the tone
onset signaled either a stimulus or control trial. High
tones always signaled stimulus trials (i.e., shock and
reward) and low tones always signaled control trials. There
were 40 trials within each task which were divided into four
10-trial blocks. Within each block there were 5 stimulus
and 5 control trials. Subjects were administered the Self
Assessment Manikin at the end of each 10-trial block.


163
involving the cingulate gyrus could not be examined in the
present sample because few patients had lesions involving
that area.
Limitations of the Study
There are several limitations of the present study.
First, both normal and brain damaged subjects did not show
the normal orienting and habituation in the
psychophysiological screening. As a consequence, it can not
be said that the RHD patients in this study have a specific
deficit in electrodermal arousal, as measured by SCR.
Tranel and Damasio found that some stroke patients have
deficits in orienting and emotional arousal, whereas others
have deficits in emotional arousal alone. Other
researchers, however, have found patients with RH strokes
show normal orienting, but abnormal emotional arousal
(Meadows and Kaplan, 1994). The orienting procedure used
by Meadows and Kaplan differed from the present study in
that they used much louder tone (100 db), whereas the
present authors used tones of 60 db. This difference in the
intensity of the tones may account for the discrepancy
between the current findings and those revealed by Meadows
and Kaplan.
Second, none of the psychophysiological measures
accurately distinguish the reward from the control
situation. Because this suggests that the reward condition
was problematic, the global and bivalent models could not be


136
within both the LHD and RHD patients, the differences
between the shock and no-shock conditions are very small.
When subjects were divided into anterior versus posterior
lesions regardless of side of lesion, the percentage of
responses were almost identical.
SCR Magnitude
Similar to the trends observed for percentage of SCRs,
the magnitude of SCRs was greater in LHD patients with
anterior lesion compared to LHD patients with posterior
lesions. Again, the opposite trend was observed in the RHD
patients. Also, as noted in the examination of percentage
of SCRs, the relative to the anterior/posterior differences,
the differences between the shock and no-shock conditions is
quite small. When the anterior and posterior groups of RHD
and LHD patients were combined, the posterior group had a
greater magnitude of response.
The Effect of Neglect
To examine the effect of neglect on SCR magnitude
during the shock task, the SCRs of the right hemisphere
subjects with neglect and/or extinction (n=5) were compared
to the LHD and CONs. Similar to the overall findings, the
LHD [T(1,34) = -2.15, P <.05, (mean=8.99, sd=13.13)] and the
RHD subjects with neglect [T(l,27) = 2.07, P < .05, (5.32,
sd=5.45)] had significantly smaller SCRs during the shock
condition compared to the CONs (mean=20.52, sd=16.03). Also
consistent with the overall findings, there were no


184
Table B-15 Performance of LH NCS on Florida Affect Battery
(percent correct by subtest)
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8a
8b
9
LC1
100
85
90
95
75
69
100
75
75/
50
80
LC2
80
95
90
100
95
94
100
10
0
100
/81
100
LC3
95
85
90
95
90
100
95
10
0
88/
88
95
LC4
100
85
75
100
90
100
100
70
94/
38
75
LC5
90
85
85
90
80
100
70
70
81/
44
90
LC6
100
85
95
100
100
100
100
90
100
/75
90
LC7
100
75
100
100
90
100
100
75
94/
50
70
LC8
85
90
90
100
80
100
85
70
81/
56
60
LC9
50
90
80
95
80
88
100
70
88/
50
90
LC10
85
95
90
95
100
100
100
10
0
88/
94
95
LC11
90
90
75
80
50
94
100
95
94/
69
80
LC12
95
85
90
95
80
100
100
70
81/
50
80


222
Table C-52 ANOVA Table of Mean HR Change from Baseline comparing
Shock and Reward Tasks
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
5.663
3
1.888
1.060
.3758
Subject(Group)
76.542
43
1.780
Condition
. 919
1
. 919
.237
. 6289
Condition by
Group
4.656
3
1.552
.400
. 7537
Condition by
Subject(Group)
166.798
43
3.879


244
Table C-80 ANOVA Table of Positive Affect comparing Shock and
Reward Tasks during Experiment Two
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
150.64
3
50.21
. 9899
.4066
Subj ect(Group)
2181.11
43
50.72
Condition
186.88
1
186.88
6.400
. 0152
Condition by
Group
165.79
3
55.26
1.892
. 1451
Condition by
Subj ect(Group)
1255.53
43
29.198
Table C-81 ANOVA Table of Negative Affect comparing Shock and
Reward Tasks of Experiment Two
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
12.58
3
4.19
1.24
.3063
Subject(Group)
145.25
43
3.38
Condition
26.49
1
26.49
8.64
. 0053
Condition by
Group
10.04
3
3.35
1.09
.3629
Condition by
Subject(Group)
131.79
43
3.06


14
experience as the awareness of bodily sensations associated
with emotion. Cannon, on the other hand, views conscious
awareness of emotion as arising from neurological activation
which may be accompanied by visceral and muscular changes.
Papez, MacLean, and LeDoux support this view. Appraisal
theorists emphasize the importance of cognition combined
with physiological arousal in the awareness of emotion.
Discrete emotion theories view the experience of categorical
emotions which corresponded to specific facial expressions.
Lastly, most dimensional theorists emphasize the experience
of emotion based on two or three polar emotional dimensions,
whereas Lang views emotional experience as an epiphenomenon
of overt behavior, physiological activity, and verbal
report.
For purposes of the present study, emotional experience
is defined as a psychological phenomenon or subjective
experience which can be measured indirectly through
physiological measures, verbal report, and overt behaviors
(e.g., facial muscle responses). Because emotional
experience is not directly observable, problems are inherent
in any definition of and attempt to measure it. In terms of
the present definition of emotional experience, it is
unclear what the impact of decreased responding in any of
the three response systems means in terms of emotional
experience. For instance, if an individual reports
experiencing anxiety, but displays no physiological or overt


203
Table C-31 ANOVA Table of Corrugator EMG during the Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
. 038
3
. 013
.287
. 8349
Subject(Group)
1.948
44
. 044
Block
.004
3
. 001
. 127
. 9438
Block by Group
. 032
9
. 003
.356
.9536
Block by
Subject(Group)
1.31
132
. 010
Tone
. 013
1
. 013
1.246
. 2703
Tone by Group
.015
3
.005
.467
.7071
Tone by
Subject(Group)
.457
44
. 010
Block by Tone
.020
3
.007
.627
.5989
Block by Tone
by Group
. 110
9
. 012
1.157
.3276
Block by Tone
by
Subject(Group)
1.390
132
. Oil


HEMISPHERIC DIFFERENCES IN EMOTIONAL PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY
By
BETH S. SLOMINE
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1995


I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
(F-v.fU
P.V. Rao ^
Professor of Statistics
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of the College of Health Related Professions and to the
Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
August 1995
Dean, College of Health Related
Professions
Dean, Graduate School


165
neuroanatomical areas involved in each lesion. As a
consequence, the results of the individual case studies
needs to be interpreted with caution.
Future Directions
Attempts need to be made to find more accurate ways to
measure pleasant emotional valence. For example, by using
younger, female subjects facial EMG may become a useful
instrument. There are few young female stroke patients.
Perhaps studies using facial EMG would provide more useful
results if conducted with different patient populations,
i.e., patients with temporal lobectomies.
Another possible way to measure facial expressiveness
may be to use a facial coding such as a facial coding system
like FACS or the system of digitizing light changes in
pixels. FACS has been used successfully in the past as a
method to explore facial expressiveness in patients with
unilateral brain damage (Mammacuri, et al., 1988;
Caltagirone, et al., 1989).
Additionally, perhaps the level of arousal during a
reward condition could be raised by providing subjects with
immediate money/lottery tickets or possibly increasing the
monetary value awarded to the subjects.
Most importantly, if an anticipatory paradigm is used
in the future, it will be important to have subjects respond
in some way during the anticipation period to insure that
they are interpreting each trial accurately. One caveat to


62
reward control trials. Additionally, SCR will decrease
over trials.
3. Compared to baseline corrugator EMG, corrugator EMG
(CEMG) will be elevated during shock anticipation and
will remain relatively unchanged during prize and
control trials.
4. Compared to baseline zygomatic EMG. zygomatic EMG (ZEMG)
will increase during prize anticipation. Additionally,
a smaller increase may be revealed during shock
anticipation. Also, ZEMG will not change from baseline
during control trials.
Focal Lesion Patients (RHP and LHP)
Predictions for the RHD and LHD patients differ
depending on the global right hemisphere emotion model
versus the bivalent model. Specific predictions for the
right hemisphere emotion model will be first presented and
then followed by those from the bivalent model.
A) Global Right Hemisphere Emotion Model: According to this
view, patients with right hemisphere damage are relatively
blunted in their emotional responsivity and experience of
emotion. Thus, RHD patients will experience less anxiety
and positive feelings during the shock and prize conditions,
respectively, relative to the NHD and LHD subjects. In
contrast, LHD patients may experience more intense emotional
responsivity than NHD subjects. Specific predictions are as
follows:


77
during the recording. Sampling occurred at 20 Hz. The
analog SC signal was then be digitized by the Multifunction
board, which physically resides in the backplane of the
Compaq computer. Software control was accomplished by
customized programs.
Corrugator and zygomatic EMG was recorded using 2-mm
Ag/AgCl electrodes placed unilaterally over the corrugator
and bilaterally over the zygomatic muscle regions after the
skin was cleansed with 70% EtOH. Zygomatic EMG was
collected bilaterally because motoneuron pathways which
innervate the lower face are largely contralateral (Rinn,
1S84). On the other hand, corrugator EMG was collected
ipsilaterally because motorneurons innervating the upper
face muscles are for the most part, bilateral (Rinn, 1984).
Additionally, to control for possible laterality effects,
the LH NCs had electrodes placed over their left brow and
the RH NCs had electrodes placed over their left. Muscle
regions were designated using the placement specified by
Tassinary, Cacioppo, & Geen (1989) Four Colbourn model
S75-01 High Gain Bioamplifiers with bandpass filters were
used to record the signals. Filter level was set at 90-1000
Hz and coupling at 10 Hz (Fridlund & Cacioppo, 1986) Data
was integrated with Colbourn model S76-01 Contour Following
Integrator with a time constant set at 500 milliseconds.
Sampling rate was 20 Hz.


HEMISPHERIC DIFFERENCES IN EMOTIONAL PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY
By
BETH S. SLOMINE
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1995

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I want to thank my Chairperson, Dr. Dawn Bowers,
for teaching me the skills needed to become a competent
researcher and writer. I also want to thank Dr. Russell
Bauer for explaining psychophysiological methodology to me
in a way that I could easily understand. I am also grateful
to Dr. Heilman for being available to answer my questions
about neurology, help me to choose patients, and map out the
CT/MRI scans. I would like to thank my other committee
members, Drs. Bradley, Rao, and Fennell for contributing
their time and expertise to this project.
Additionally, I would like to thank the many people who
provided technical support for this project. Samel Celebi
wrote all the computer porgrams and set up the interface
between hardware and software. Barbara Haas taught me
appropriate electrode placement and forced me to use an
impedence meter. I am also grateful to those individuals at
the West Roxbury VAMC who helped me to finish this project.
Bill Milberg provided me with the time and computer
facilities needed to conduct data reduction and analyses.
Patrick Kilduff patiently helped me to reduce the tremendous
amount of data I had collected. Also, Gina McGlinchy
11

assisted me with my statistics and never got angry as she
showed me the same steps over and over again.
I would also like to thank the research assistants who
helped me with this project. Hillary Webb, Kim Roberts, and
Brian Howland all helped in heartrate reduction. I would
especially like to thank Scott Lebowitz who worked
diligently on many aspects of the project from subject
recruitment to data managment.
I would also like to thank those individuals and
organizations who helped me to find participants for this
study, including Beth McCauley; Anne Rottman, M.D.; Laura
Hodges, P.T.; Orlando Stroke Club, Golden Gators; and the
other seniors groups from local churches who allowed me to
recruit subjects through their organization. And, of
course, I would like to thank all of those individuals who
spent the many hours required to participate in this
project.
Lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends who
supported me and attempted to calm me down through all of my
catastrophizing over the last three years.
in

TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
ABSTRACT vi
CHAPTERS
1 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 1
Theories of Emotion 2
Hemispheric Assymetry of Emotion 15
Emotional Psychophysiology 38
Critical Issues 51
2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 56
Overview of Experimental Design 59
Hypotheses and Predicitions 60
3 METHODS 6 9
Subjects 69
Baseline Evaluation 73
Experiment 1 74
Experiment 2 83
Design Issues 85
4 RESULTS 8 8
Group Data 88
Subgroup Data 134
Individual Case Studies 137
5 DISCUSSION 145
Differential Responding in Normal
Subjects 147
Group Differences in Emotional
Responding 155
Global versus Bivalent Models of
Emotion 159
Neuroanatomic Correlates 161
Limitations of the Study 163
Future Directions 165
IV

APPENDICES
A PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASURES 167
Self-Assessment Manikin 167
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule... 167
B DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 169
C STATISTICAL INFORMATION 185
REFERENCES 246
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 263
v

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
HEMISPHERIC DIFFERENCES IN EMOTIONAL PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY
BY
Beth S. Slomine
August 1995
Chairperson: Dawn Bowers
Cochairperson: Russell M. Bauer
Major Department: Clinical & Health Psychology
Two theories have been proposed to explain the
organization of emotions within the cortical hemispheres.
According to the global right hemisphere model, the right
hemisphere takes a predominant role in modulating emotions.
Based on the global theory, patients with right hemisphere
damage (RHD) have a deficit in emotional processing of all
emotions. According to the other hemispheric theory of
emotion, the bivalent model, the right hemisphere modulates
negative emotions and the left hemisphere modulates positive
emotions. This model predicts that RHD patients would be
deficient in emotional processing of negative emotions,
whereas patients with left hemisphere damage (LHD) would be
impaired in processing positive emotions.
vi

In this study, emotional experience as measured by
autonomic responding, facial muscle activity, and verbal
report was examined in 12 patients with RHD, 12 patients
with LHD, and 24 normal control subjects (NCS) during
anticipation of shock and reward. Results revealed that
during the shock condition, RHD subjects displayed a deficit
in skin conductance responding compared with the NCS, but
not compared with the LHD subjects. None of autonomic or
facial muscle variables differentiated the reward from the
control condition during the reward task. These results are
discussed in light of the global and bivalent theories of
emotion as well as neuroanatomic correlates of electrodermal
activity.
Vll

CHAPTER 1
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
Patients with unilateral brain damage have been used to
investigate hemispheric contribution to emotional
perception, voluntary expression, and to a lesser extent
"experience" as indirectly assessed through physiologic
arousal, overt behavior, and verbal report. Although some
studies have suggested that differences in post-stroke mood
occur following right hemisphere damage (RHD) and left
hemisphere damage (LHD), few studies have assessed brief
emotional experience while measuring psychophysiological and
behavioral indices of emotion in these patients. Moreover,
when emotional experience has been studied using
physiological indices of emotion, patients needed to decode
emotional stimuli, which may be problematic for some RHD
patients. Additionally, no study to date has employed
facial EMG when examining emotional experience in
unilaterally damaged patients. In the current project,
stroke patients with left or right hemisphere lesions
participated in two experiments designed to examine specific
deficits in pleasant and unpleasant emotional experience as
a function of unilateral brain damage. Both physiological
1

2
responding, facial behavior, and verbal report were measured
during "in vivo" affective situations.
Before discussing the experiments further, a brief
overview of the literature is provided. The review includes
prominent theories of emotion which have stemmed from the
works of James (1884/1922), Lange (1922), and Cannon (1927).
Moreover, theories of hemispheric specialization of emotion
are provided. Specifically, two predominant
neuropsychological theories of emotion are explored: (1)
the global right hemisphere theory which states that the
right hemisphere is responsible for affective processing;
and (2) the bivalent view which conceptualizes the right
hemisphere as predominant for negative emotions and the left
hemisphere as predominant for positive emotions. In
addition, studies of hemispheric differences in emotional
evaluation, expression, arousal, and mood are discussed.
Lastly, an overview of emotional psychophysiology is
presented.
Theories of Emotion
The quest to understand emotion has stimulated the
development of many theories and much empirical data over
the past century. According to Kleinginna and Kleinginna
(1981) the numerous definitions of emotion complicate
research in emotion. After an extensive review of emotional
definitions, they classified psychological definitions of
emotions into 11 non-mutually exclusive categories on the

basis of emotional phenomenon and theoretical issues. They
concluded that a definition of emotion should be broad
3
enough to include significant aspects of emotion, but still
be able to distinguish emotion from other psychological
phenomenon. They suggested the following definition:
Emotion is a complex set of interactions among
subjective and objective factors, mediated by
neural/hormonal systems, which can (a) give rise to
affective experiences such as feelings of arousal,
pleasure/displeasure; (b) generate cognitive processes
such as emotionally relevant perceptual effects,
appraisals, labeling processes; (c) activate widespread
physiological adjustments to the arousing conditions;
and (d) lead to behavior that is often, but not always,
expressive, goal directed, and adaptive, (p. 355)
Like the numerous definitions of emotions, there are many
theories of emotion. These differ in their
conceptualization of emotional experience and the role of
cognition in emotional experience. A few prominent emotion
theories are described below.
James-Lange versus Cannon Debate
James (1884/1922) and Lange (1922) were the first to
challenge the common sense view that perception of an event
was followed by the experience of emotion. James stated
that "...the bodily changes follow the perception of the
exciting fact, and that our feelings of the same changes as
they occur is the emotion" (p.13). James proposed that, in
order to experience emotion, one must simultaneously exhibit
physiological and expressive changes, such as tensed muscles
and quickened heart rate during fear. Specifically, the
James-Lange theory states that perception occurs when an

4
object stimulates one or more sense organs relaying afferent
impulses into the cortex. Next, cortical efferents send
information to skeletal and visceral musculature producing
complex changes. Lastly, sensory information from the
affected musculature is projected back to the cortex.
Perception of this sensory information produces the
experience of emotion. In the early 20th century, the
James-Lange theory predominated the study of emotion (Izard,
1977) .
In 1927, Cannon presented five criticisms of James-
Lange' s hypotheses that perception of autonomic/visceral
changes are responsible for the experience of emotion.
First, Cannon cited evidence that spinal cord transections
in dogs, in which the sensations of the viscera were
separated from the CNS, did not alter emotional experience.
Additionally, he stated that cats who had their entire
sympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system removed
showed all the manifestations of rage when presented with a
dog (i.e., hissing, growling, and retraction of the ears)
except the cats did not raise the hairs on their backs.
Second, Cannon pointed out that the same visceral changes
occur during sympathetic arousal even though different
emotion states may be experienced. Additionally,
sympathetic arousal produces similar changes in non-
emotional states such as fever or exposure to cold. Third,
Cannon argued that the viscera are relatively insensitive

5
structures and changes are often not experienced
consciously. Fourth, he stated that visceral changes are
slow and thus, cannot be a source of emotion. Fifth, he
claimed that producing artificial visceral changes does not
produce affect. He used adrenalin as an example stating
that adrenalin produces bodily changes that are not
accompanied by affective states. He concluded that the
sensation of visceral responses cannot produce affect.
Cannon hypothesized that "emotional expression results
from action of subcortical centers" (p.115). Cannon cited
studies in which various types of decorticate animals
displayed abnormal affective responses, whereas animals with
hypothalamotomies failed to display affective behavior.
Consequently, Cannon concluded that the cerebral cortex
normally inhibits thalamic activation. He purported that
during normal emotional experience sensory information
arrives at the cortex and is projected to the hypothalamus
releasing it from cortical control. Cannon proposed that
hypothalamic activation relays information to somatic
musculature and smooth musculature of the viscera to produce
characteristic manifestations of emotion. Simultaneously,
the hypothalamus projects to cortex which produces the
conscious awareness of emotion. According to Cannon
muscular changes, visceral changes, and conscious experience
of emotion all occur simultaneously. The result is intense

6
emotional experience accompanied by behavior and
physiological indices of emotion.
Later scientists elaborated on Cannon's theory. Papez
(1937) postulated that a circuit of emotion exists that
relays information to the hypothalamus from the anterior
thalamus, cingulate cortex, and hippocampus. He posited
that emotion originates in the hippocampal formation and is
relayed through the above circuit to the cortex. He
described the cingulate gyrus as the receptive cortical
region for emotion. About a decade later, MacLean (1949,
1952) described the limbic system as a group of
phylogenetically old cortical structures that are involved
in emotion.
More recently, LeDoux (1989) has argued that emotion
and cognition are mediated by separate though interacting
neural systems. According to LeDoux, the amygdala is the
major component of the brain's affective processing system,
whereas the hippocampus is critically involved in cognitive
processing. Both affective and cognitive computations can
occur without conscious awareness. According to LeDoux,
affective computations occur via thalamo-amygdala
projections which process the affective significance of
simple sensory cues, whereas the cortico-amygdala pathway
processes complex affective stimuli. The thalamo-amygdala
projections are adaptive because this pathway often leads
directly to motor responses with brief processing time,

7
i.e., fleeing from a dangerous snake. LeDoux proposed that
the amygdala receives exteroceptive sensory, interoceptive
sensory, and neural input. In addition, LeDoux (1984)
explains that sensory information from the peripheral
nervous system feeds back to the amygdala to intensify
amygdala excitation and increase the duration and intensity
of the experience of emotion.
LeDoux suggested that the amygdala performs the
functions that Cannon (1927) and Papez (1937) thought
belonged to the hypothalamus. Together, Cannon, Papez, and
LeDoux challenged the James-Lange Theory in hypothesizing
that emotional experience can be generalized in the brain
without the participation of the peripheral nervous system.
However, none of these theories discuss the differing roles
that the right and left cerebral hemispheres may play in
modulating emotional behavior.
Appraisal Theories
Other theorists have attempted to address Cannon's
criticism of autonomic feedback proposed by James and Lange.
Russell (1927/1961) stated that cognition as well as
physiological feedback compose the experience of emotion.
Within the past few decades, some theorists have viewed
emotion as a phenomenon developing from cognitive appraisal
of an event, situation, or condition. Arnold (1960)
described emotion as the nonrational judgement of an object
which follows perception and appraisal. Schacter and Singer

8
(1962) proposed that physiological arousal along with
cognitive appraisal are both essential for emotion to
result. They suggested that some event or condition creates
physiological arousal which is combined with evaluation of
the event or condition (cognitive appraisal) to lead to the
experience of emotion.
Central to appraisal theories is the view that the
experience of any emotion (i.e., joy, anger, fear) involves
the same physiological arousal, but different cognitive
appraisals. Lazarus and Averill (1972) explained that
emotion results from appraisal of stimuli and the
formulation of a response. In their view, appraisal reduces
and organizes stimulus input to a specific concept, (e.g., a
threat). Lazarus and Averill also asserted that personal
psychological structure and social norms also influence
appraisal. Most importantly, they concluded that appraisal
determines the specific emotional experience. For example,
anger has been associated with the perception of goal
obstacles, whereas fear is associated with perceived
uncertainty about and unpleasant situation (Ellsworth &
Smith, 1988) . However, these theorists place little or no
emphasis on neural hardware which might underlie or
contribute to appraisal.
Differential Emotion Theory
The Differential Emotion Theory was developed by
Tomkins (1962, 1963) who proposed that awareness of

9
proprioceptive feedback from facial muscles constitutes the
experience of emotion. According to Tomkins, emotion-
specific innate programs for groups of facial expressions
are stored in subcortical centers. Tomkins hypothesized
that once an emotion has been activated, facial feedback is
provided to the cortex. Additionally, Tomkins argued that
it is the facial feedback that initiates visceral
activation.
Differing slightly from Tomkins, Izard (1977) argued
that emotion involves three components; neural activity or
the density of neural firing per unit time, striate muscle
feedback to the brain, and subjective experience. Izard
posited that each component can be dissociated from the
others, but that the three are normally interdependent.
Specifically, according to Izard, internal or external
stimuli affect the gradient of neural stimulation in the
limbic system and sensory cortex. Information from these
areas are relayed to the hypothalamus which plays a role in
determining the facial expression to be effected. From the
hypothalamus, impulses are relayed to the basal ganglia
where the neural message for facial expression is mediated
by motor cortex. Impulses from motor cortex, via cranial
nerve VII lead to the specific facial expression. Cranial
nerve V receives sensory input from the face and projects,
via the posterior hypothalamus, to sensory cortex. It is

10
the cortical integration of facial expression feedback that
generates subjective experience of emotion.
Proponents of the Differential Emotion Theory have
conceptualized a certain number of fundamental emotion
categories which are comprised of specific phenomenological
characteristics, expressive responses, and physiological
patterns. Darwin (1872) was one of the first to discuss his
observations of the expression of discrete emotions. He
described many emotions which he viewed as having
corresponding facial expressions which are universally
displayed and recognized by humans cross culturally.
According to Izard (1977) there are 10 fundamental emotions
such as happiness, sadness, anger, fear, and disgust.
The concept of discrete emotions developed mostly from
direct observation and study of facial expressions.
Fridlund, Ekman, and Oster (1987) reviewed the literature on
facial expressions including phylogenetic, cross-cultural,
and developmental research. They determined that there is
much support for discrete emotions. Their conclusions,
based on the literature, are as follows: (1) phylogenetic
studies have shown that many nonhuman primates show a
variety of differentiated facial patterns and similar facial
patterns have been observed among human and nonhuman
primates; (2) cross-cultural studies have revealed that
members of different cultures display the same facial
expressions and use analogous emotion labels when

11
identifying the underlying emotions of posed expressions;
and (3) developmental research has indicated that facial
musculature is fully formed and functional at birth and
infants display many facial expressions similar to adult
expressions. Also, infants demonstrate differential
responses to facial expressions by 3 months of age and have
the capacity to imitate facial movements within the first
few days of life.
One problem not addressed by the differential emotions
theorists is whether spontaneous experience of these
emotions is accompanied by the occurrence of the predicted
facial expression (Davidson, in press). For instance,
Davidson stated that little is known about the incidence of
different facial expressions depending on context or type of
emotion elicitor (i.e., imagery, emotional film clip). For
example, Tomarken and Davidson (1992) found very few overt
expressions of fear in response to fear film clips. Also,
Davidson (in press) raised questions concerning the facial
expressions of positive emotion. Specifically, he indicated
that while there are multiple forms of positive affect as
evidenced using behavioral, subjective, and physiological
indices, there is only one facial expression indicative of
the experience of positive emotion.
Dimensional Approaches
In an attempt to explain the polarity of emotion,
dimensional theorists have conceptualized emotion as varying

12
on two or three polar dimensions. Wundt (1896) suggested
that emotions can be conceptualized in terms of three
different dimensions: pleasantness-unpleasantness,
relaxation-tension, and calm-excitement. In addition, the
dimensional views of emotion were supported by Cannon's
(1927) claim that the same visceral changes occur in
different emotional states. Consequently, theorists such as
Duffy (1957) conceptualized emotions as varying along a
general state of activation or arousal. Other contemporary
investigators have used dimensions to characterize facial
expressions (e.g., Scholsberg, 1941; Osgood, 1966) and
verbal report (e.g., Russell & Mehrabian, 1977). Lang
(1985) stated that most variance within factor analytic
studies of the verbal report of emotional experience was
accounted for by two dimensions, activation (arousal-
quiescence) and valence (pleasure-displeasure). Because the
bidimensional view seems to neglect a certain amount of
variance, Lang proposed that the dimension termed dominance-
submission by Russell and Mehrabian (1977) may account for
the residual variance.
Similar to the view of the discrete emotions theorists,
Lang (1985) suggested that emotional behavior has developed
phylogenetically for basic survival tasks (e.g., searching
for food or fighting for territory). Further, Lang
hypothesized that the combination of valence (approach vs.
avoid), arousal (energy mobilization), and dominance

13
(postural stance) are critically important for smooth
execution of behaviors necessary for success in survival
tasks. Lang asserted that it is essential to determine how
emotion is represented in memory in order to ascertain how
emotion drives cognitive processing. Lang proposed that
emotion information is coded within memory in the form of
propositions which are organized into associative networks.
The associative networks are comprised of three tiers;
semantic codes, stimulus representation, and response
programs.
According to Lang's Bioinformational Theory (1979,
1984), emotions are associated with action. Access of
emotional propositions are associated with efferent outflow,
and thus emotion can be measured in terms of three response
systems; verbal report, overt behavior (i.e, facial
expression, body posturing, and emotional prosody), and
peripheral and central physiological measures. However,
only stable networks which are called emotion prototypes,
such as those found in phobics, demonstrate a reliable
behavioral output in all three response systems.
Consequently, emotional experience is an epiphenomenon of
the 3 response systems which reflect an underlying centrally
represented propositional network.
Taken together, theories of emotion differ quite
dramatically in their emphasis on and definition of
emotional experience. James and Lange view emotional

14
experience as the awareness of bodily sensations associated
with emotion. Cannon, on the other hand, views conscious
awareness of emotion as arising from neurological activation
which may be accompanied by visceral and muscular changes.
Papez, MacLean, and LeDoux support this view. Appraisal
theorists emphasize the importance of cognition combined
with physiological arousal in the awareness of emotion.
Discrete emotion theories view the experience of categorical
emotions which corresponded to specific facial expressions.
Lastly, most dimensional theorists emphasize the experience
of emotion based on two or three polar emotional dimensions,
whereas Lang views emotional experience as an epiphenomenon
of overt behavior, physiological activity, and verbal
report.
For purposes of the present study, emotional experience
is defined as a psychological phenomenon or subjective
experience which can be measured indirectly through
physiological measures, verbal report, and overt behaviors
(e.g., facial muscle responses). Because emotional
experience is not directly observable, problems are inherent
in any definition of and attempt to measure it. In terms of
the present definition of emotional experience, it is
unclear what the impact of decreased responding in any of
the three response systems means in terms of emotional
experience. For instance, if an individual reports
experiencing anxiety, but displays no physiological or overt

15
responses, it is unknown whether there is a disconnection
between experience and motor output or whether the person is
not experiencing the emotion as completely as someone who
reacted with all three response systems.
Hemispheric Asymmetry of Emotion
Along with general psychological theories of emotion,
investigators have examined the organization of emotion in
the brain. Historically, emotion has been associated with
the limbic system (Papez, 1937; MacLean, 1952). More
recently, neuropsychologists have examined the role of the
cerebral hemispheres in modulating emotional behavior.
Research involving neurologically impaired patients has
aided in developing an understanding of how various domains
of emotional behavior (i.e., evaluation, expression,
arousal) are disrupted by focal lesions of the left and
right hemispheres. Based on some clinical studies, along
with findings from normal individuals (see review, Heilman,
Bowers, & Valenstein in press), inferences have been made
regarding the neural networks that might underlie different
aspects of emotional behavior including evaluation,
expression, arousal, and experience.
Early observations of individuals following hemispheric
damage revealed differences in mood reactions depending on
whether the left or right hemisphere was involved.
Babinski (1914) was one of the first to note that patients
with right hemisphere damage (RHD) appeared indifferent or

16
euphoric. Others have reported similar observations (Denny-
Brown, Meyer, & Horenstein, 1952). Denny-Brown et al.
described a 55 year old woman with a right parietal infarct,
who appeared "indifferent" towards her illness as well as
apathetic towards her family's affairs. By contrast,
individuals with left hemisphere dysfunction (LHD) have been
observed to appear depressed, which was termed "catastrophic
reaction" by Goldstein (1948) . Terzian (1964) noted that
injection of sodium amytal into the left carotid artery,
which inactivated the left hemisphere, was associated with a
depressive reaction, whereas injection of sodium amytal into
the right carotid artery was associated with an euphoric
reaction. More systematic large-scale studies of RHD and
LHD patients have been consistent with the early clinical
reports. Gainotti (1972) investigated the verbal
expressions and behavior of 160 patients with left and right
hemisphere lesions. Behaviors indicative of catastrophic
reactions or anxious-depressive mood were more frequent
among LHD patients, while indifference reactions were more
prevalent among RHD patients. Observations of post-stroke
mood changes has generated a large body of research over the
past 20 years in an attempt to understand the contributions
of the left and right hemispheres to emotion.
Two prominent theories of hemispheric differences in
emotion have arisen from the clinical studies reported
above. According to the global right hemisphere view, the

17
right hemisphere is involved in interpreting emotional
stimuli and has a unique relationship to subcortical
structures which mediate cerebral arousal and activation
(e.g., Heilman, Watson, & Bowers, 1983). Consequently,
damage in the right hemisphere interferes with processing
emotional stimuli, programs of expressive behavior, and
cerebral arousal and activation. In contrast, the bivalent
view of emotion posits that the anterior portion of the
right hemisphere is dominant for negative/avoidance emotions
and the anterior region of the left hemisphere is dominant
for positive/approach emotions (e.g., Fox & Davidson, 1984).
According to the bivalent view, right hemisphere damage
causes positive/approach affect and left hemisphere damage
evokes negative/avoidance affect. Both models and the
empirical research in support of each are discussed below.
Global Theory of Emotion
According to the global right hemisphere model,
observations of emotional indifference in RHD patients can
be explained by the right hemisphere's specialization for
coding nonverbal affective signals and mediating arousal and
activation (Heilman et al., 1983). The global right
hemisphere theory is supported by research exploring
emotional evaluation, expression, and arousal/activation,
which has revealed that RHD patients are deficient in
interpretation of emotional stimuli, are emotionally

18
flattened, and physiologically hypoaroused. The relevant
research is discussed below.
Evaluation of emotion
Most of the research in support of the global right
hemisphere view of emotion has arisen from investigations of
evaluation and perception of affective stimuli (i.e., facial
expression and emotional prosody). Many patients with RHD
have impairments in identifying and discriminating facial
expressions. This research was initially conducted by
DeKosky, Heilman, Bowers, and Valenstein (1980) and has been
consistently replicated across other laboratories (Cicone,
Wapner, & Gardner, 1980; Etcoff, 1984; Bowers, Bauer,
Coslett, & Heilman, 1985) . From an historical perspective,
one critical issue was whether the RH superiority in
identifying facial expressions was secondary to the role of
the RH in mediating complex visual configurational stimuli.
Evidence against this view point comes from covariance
studies, individual case reports, and studies which find RHD
patients impaired in identifying facial affect when it has
been verbally described.
First, in covariance studies, visucperceptual ability
has been controlled for and equated statistically. In these
studies, deficits in RHD patients in recognition of
affective facial expressions have been observed above and
beyond deficits in visuoperceptual ability (Ley and Byrden,
1979; Bowers et al., 1985). Second, case descriptions have

19
documented dissociations between performance on
visuoperceptual facial recognition and performance on
affective facial expression recognition (Dekosky et al. ,
1980). Third, Elonder et al. (1992) found that RHD patients
were impaired relative to LHD patients and NHD controls in
identifying emotion associated with a verbal description of
a non-verbal signal, i.e., he scowled. Similar results
were found in RHD patients compared to LHD patients and
normal controls when asked to imagine facial expressions
(Bowers, Blonder, Feinberg, & Heilman, 1991) . Because these
nonverbal affect signals were verbally described, poor
performance of the RHD group could not be attributed to
perceptual impairment.
Taken together, these studies suggest that there are
specific subsystems for processing affective facial stimuli.
This evidence is comparable to findings in the animal
literature. Using single cell recordings, neuroscientists
have identified visual neurons in the temporal cortex and
amygdala of monkeys that responded selectively to faces and
to facial expressions (Perret et al., 1984; Leonard, Rolls,
& Wilson, 1985).
In addition co deficits in comprehension of emotional
faces, many patients with RHD also have impairments in
understanding emocional prosody. For example, many patients
with RHD have difficulty identifying emotional prosody,
which includes the pitch, tempo and rhythm of speech.

20
Discrimination of affectively intoned speech was found to be
worse in patients with RHD in the temporoparietal regions
compared to patients with LHD (Tucker, Watson, & Heilman,
1977; Heilman, Scholes, & Watson, 1975; Ross, 1981).
In addition, there is evidence to suggest that RHD
patients are impaired in understanding nonemotional as well
as emotional prosody (Weintraub, Mesulam, & Kramer, 1981) .
Both RHD and LHD patients were impaired compared to NHD
controls in nonemotional prosody, while RHD were more
impaired than the LHD patients in emotional prosody
(Heilman, Bowers, Speedie, & Coslett, 1984). Consequently,
these authors conclude that both hemispheres are important
in comprehension of nonemotional prosody, but the right
hemisphere plays a more vital role in the comprehension of
emotional prosody.
Not all studies find hemispheric specific prosody
dysfunction. Schlanger, Schlanger, and Gerstmann (1976)
found no differences between RHD and LHD patients in
comprehension of emotional prosody; however, only 3 of 20
RHD patients in this study had temporoparietal lesions.
More recently, Van Lancker and Sidtis (1992) found equally
poor affective prosodic recognition in RHD and LHD patients.
Moreover, they determined that LHD and RHD patients use
different cues in attempting to recognize affective prosody.
Specifically, RHD patients tended to use timing cues,
whereas LHD patients used information about pitch. These

21
authors concluded that affective prosody is a multifaceted
process which cannot simply be explained by differences in
hemispheric specialization.
Studies of normals using dichotic listening tasks have
also been employed to explore hemispheric differences in
processing emotional prosody. In dichotic listening, two
different messages are simultaneously presented to the right
and left ears. Words were recalled best from the right ear
indicative of left hemisphere superiority (Kimura, 1967) ,
while mood of the speaker was recalled better from the left
ear, suggestive of right hemisphere superiority in
processing emotional prosody (Haggard & Parkinson, 1971; Ley
Sc Bryden, 1982) .
In contrast to the tasks involving nonverbal signals,
evidence for a unique role of the right hemisphere in
mediating emotional understanding of messages that are
conveyed through propositional language is equivocal.
Recognition of emotional words has been found to be better
when presented tachistoscopically to the right hemisphere
(Graves, Landis, & Goodglass, 1981). However, RHD and LHD
patients did not differ in the ability to comprehend the
meaning of emotional and nonemotional words (Morris et al.,
1992), the ability to identify emotionality of short
propositional sentences (Heilman et al., 1984; Cicone,
Wapner, & Gardner, 1980; Blonder, Bowers, Sc Heilman, 1991),

22
or the ability to judge similarity between two emotional
words (Etcoff, 1984).
However, recent evidence contradicts these findings.
Borod et al. (1992) found that, when compared to LHD and NHD
patients, RHD patients were more impaired in identifying and
discriminating emotional words and sentences. In addition,
RHD patients were impaired in their understanding of
emotionality in complex narratives (Gardner, Brownell,
Wapner, & Michelon, 1983; Gardner, Ling, Flam, & Silverman,
1975; Brownell, Michelon, Powelson, & Gardner, 1983). The
deficits of RHD patients in understanding complex narratives
may not be related to emotion, but to difficulties of RHD
patients in drawing inferences, reasoning, and interpreting
figures of speech (Heilman, Bowers, & Valenstein, in press).
However, this explanation does not explain the results of
Borod et al. (1992) who found that RHD were impaired in
identifying and discriminating words and short sentences.
Taken together, the above studies indicate that
patients with RHD have more difficulty than LHD patients and
NHD controls in evaluating nonverbal signals of emotion,
including facial expressions, emotional prosody, and verbal
messages of emotions. Moreover, RHD patients are equally
impaired for both positive and negative emotional signals.
Although some deficits in recognition of facial expressions
in RHD patients are related to general dysfunction in
visuospatial ability, others are apparently independent of

23
visuospatial ability. In part, some deficits in affective
prosody may be due to more elemental dysfunction in complex
auditory analysis. In contrast to nonverbal affective
signals, the role of the right hemisphere in processing
verbal emotional signals remains unclear. At present, some
argue that an emotional semantic network is widely
distributed between the hemispheres whereas other argue that
the RH may be dominant for emotional semantics.
Expression of emotion
The global right hemisphere view of emotion has also
been supported by investigations of deficits in expression
of emotion. Overall facial expressivity of emotions has
been evaluated in RHD, LHD, and NH controls. Some authors
have reported that RHD patients were less spontaneously
expressive than LHD and NH controls (Blonder, et al., 1991;
Borod, Koff, Lorch, & Nicholas, 1985; Borod, Koff, Perlman-
Lorch, & Nicholas, 1988; Buck & Duffy, 1980) . However,
Weddell, Miller, and Trevartht_n (1990) found LHD and RHD
patients who had tumors were equally impaired and less
expressive than NHD controls. When excisions occurred or
tumor and CVA patients were combined, RHD and LHD patients
did not significantly differ from controls (Kolb & Milner,
1981; Mammacuri, et al. , 1988). Additionally, re '-nt
evidence exists from studies using a carefully delineated
facial scoring system which contradicts the findings that
RHD patients are less facially expressive. For example, no

24
differences in facial expressiveness has been found between
LHD and RHD patients when Ekman's facial action scoring
system (FACS) has been used (Mammacuri, et al., 1988 ;
Caltagirone, et al., 1989).
Other studies have examined the ability of RHD and LHD
patients to voluntarily pose specific facial expression.
Some investigators have found that RHD patients were more
impaired than LHD patients and NHD controls in their
voluntary expression of facial affect (Borod, Koff, Perlman-
Lorch, & Nicholas, 1986; Borod, Sc Koff, 1990; Kent, et al. ,
1988 ; Richardson, Bowers, Eyeler, Sc Heilman, 1992) . Other
investigators (Kolb and Taylor, 1990) found that RHD and LHD
patients are equally impaired relative to NHD controls,
whereas others found no differences in expressivity among
these three groups (Caltagirone et al., 1988; Heilman et
al., 1983; Weddell, et al., 1990).
Borod (submitted) reviewed the literature on facial
expressiveness in unilateral damaged patients. She
concluded that the patients in those studies finding RHD
patients to be more impaired than LHD and normal controls
differed from those in which differences were not found.
Specifically, she noted that the first group was more likely
to be older, male, with cerebrovascular pathology, and a
longer time since disease onset. The second group was more
likely to have tumor pathology. Additionally, subjective
ratings were used in the first group, while FACS and

25
concealed videotapes were used in the second group. One
problem with these differences is that stroke patients may
have more severe cognitive deficits than comparable tumor
patients (Anderson, Damasio & Tranel, 1990). Secondly,
acute pathology is associated with more pervasive deficits
(Borod, in press). Thirdly, FACS may be insufficiently
sensitive to facial expressive communication (Buck, 1990).
Asymmetries in facial expressiveness have also been
examined in normal adults. In a recent review of 23 studies
of spontaneous expression and 24 studies of posed
expression, Borod (in press) concluded that the left
hemiface is more intense and moves more than the right
hemiface. According to Borod, these results were stronger
for negative than positive emotions. There have been
fewer studies of prosodic emotion than facial expression of
emotion in patients with unilateral damage. Studies of
spontaneous prosodic expression have revealed deficits in
RHD patients compared to LHD patients and NHD controls (Ross
& Mesulam, 1979; Borod et al. , 1985; Gorelick & Ross, 1987;
Ross, 1981) . Similar results were found in investigations
of voluntary affective prosody, such that RHD patients
showed impairment relative to LHD and NHD controls (Borod et
al., 1990; Gorelick & Ross, 1987; Tucker, et al., 1977).
However, Cancelliere and Kertesz (1990) found no impairments
in either RHD and LHD patients relative to NHD controls.

26
Emotional arousal/activation
Few studies have examined affective psychophysiological
reactivity in brain-lesioned individuals. In the most
commonly used procedure, emotional slides have been used to
evoke affective responses while skin conductance response
(SCR) is measured. Findings indicate that normals and
patients with LHD have significantly higher SCRs to
emotional than neutral slides. In contrast, RHD patients do
not differentially respond to emotional and neutral slides
(Morrow, Vrtunski, Kim, & Boiler, 1981; Zoccolatti, Scabini,
& Violani, 1982).
Similar results were obtained by Meadows and Kaplan
(1992) using slides depicting neutral and negative content
(i.e., mutilations). Relative to NHD controls, RHD patients
had smaller SCRs to both emotional and neutral slides, LHD
patients had high SCRs to both types of slides. Contrary
to the above findings, Schrandt, Tranel, and Damasio (1989)
found that left hemisphere lesions and many right hemisphere
lesions did not interfere with SCR during presentation of
emotional slides. In this study, patients with focal
lesions in left or right frontal, parietal, or temporal
lobes were examined. Only patients with right hemisphere
lesions involving the supramarginal gyrus displayed abnormal
SCRs .
In another study, Heilman, Schwartz, andWatson (1978)
investigated SCR while a mildly noxious electrical stimulus

27
was delivered to the forearm ipsilateral to the lesion in
RHD, LHD, and NH patients. The RHD group had smaller SCRs
than either the LHD or NH groups. Also, the LHD group had a
higher SCR than the normal group.
Cardiovascular activity has also been examined in
patients with LHD and RHD. Yokoyama, Jennings, Ackles,
Hood, and Boiler (1987) examined RHD, LHD, and NC patients
using a reaction time task, while HR interbeat intervals
were obtained. The controls and LHD subjects displayed
anticipatory deceleration, followed by postresponse
acceleration. The HR responding of the RHD patients varied
little during anticipation and postresponse.
To sum, emotional slides evoke smaller SCR or less
arousal, in right hemisphere damaged patients compared to
NHD and LHD patients. Moreover, one study only found this
distinction in patients with right parietal lesions.
Additionally, in some studies, LHD patients responded with
accentuated SCRs, (i.e., greater arousal), in response to
emotional slides. Similar findings of decreased SCRs in RHD
patients and increased SCR in LHD patients have been
obtained in response to mildly noxious stimuli. Also,
patients with RHD have attenuated HR reactivity in response
to a reaction time task. Taken together, it appears that
RHD patients are hypoaroused and LHD patients may be
hyperaroused in response to emotional, painful, or
attention-demanding stimuli.

28
Bivalent Model of Emotion
In its simplest form, the bivalent model posits that
the right hemisphere is specialized for negative/avoidance
emotions, whereas the left hemisphere is specialized for
positive/approach emotions. According to the bivalent
model, the catastrophic reaction noted in left hemisphere
patients results from the predominance of the right
hemisphere's negative emotion. On the other hand, the
observations that right hemisphere damaged patients are
euphoric or cheerful can be explained by the overcontrol of
the left hemisphere's mediation of positive emotions
(Davidson & Fox, 1982; Kinsbourne & Bemporad, 1984; Reuter-
Lorenz & Davidson, 1981). This model was first based on
observation of emotional behavior during inactivation of the
left and right hemispheres with injection of sodium amytal
(Terzian, 1964).
Evaluation of emotion
Research investigating the hemispheric differences
during evaluation of nonverbal signals of emotion has
yielded conflicting results. Although tachistoscopic
studies in normals generally support the view that the right
hemisphere is superior for processing emotional faces (i.e.,
Suberi & McKeever, 1977), closer examination reveals some
support for the bivalent view of emotion. For example, the
finding of right hemisphere superiority was attenuated with
happy and angry facial expressions, which can be

29
conceptualized as approach emotions (Suberi & McKeever,
1977). Additionally, Reuter-Lorenz and Davidson (1981)
presented subjects with an emotional face and a neutral face
of the same individual simultaneously to each visual field.
Reaction times for identifying happy expressions were faster
during presentation to the right visual field (left
hemisphere) and faster for sad expressions when presented to
the left visual field (right hemisphere). However results
have not been consistently replicated (Duda & Brown, 1984;
McLaren & Bryson, 1987), and the vast majority of studies of
affect perception in normals or focal lesion patients failed
to demonstrate hemisphere-specific valence asymmetries.
Expression of emotion
Many studies of facial expressiveness have found that
the left side of the face is more expressive than the right.
These studies have been interpreted as reflecting a dominant
role of the right hemisphere in emotional expression
(Sackeim & Gur, 1978; Borod, Koff, & White, 1983; Campbell,
1978; Heller & Levy, 1981; Moreno, Borod, Welkowitz, &
Alpert, 1990). However, Schwartz, Ahern, and Brown (1979)
recorded bilateral corrugator and zygomatic EMG during a
mood induction task. They found that subjects expressed
positive emotions more intensely on the right side of the
face and negative emotions on the left side of the face.
However, the majority of research investigating emotional
expressivity in normals and patients with focal lesions

30
supports the global rather than the bivalent model (Blonder,
et al., 1991; Borod et al. , 1985, 1988; Buck & Duffy, 1980).
Emotional arousal/activation
Hemispheric activation during emotional responding in
normal subjects have been investigated using measures such
as electroencephalography (EEG) and lateral eye movements
(LEM). Using EEG, it has been found that in the frontal
zones, positive emotions produced more left than right
hemisphere EEG activation, while negative emotions produced
more right than left EEG activation (Ahern & Schwartz, 1985;
Tucker, Stensiie, Roth, & Shearer, 1981; Davidson et al.,
1979; Davidson, et al., 1990) . In addition, Ahern and
Schwartz (1985) found that the right parietal zone was
related to emotional intensity, whereas Bennett, Davidson
and Saron (1980) as well as Davidson and colleagues (1990)
found no differences in parietal activation related to
emotion.
Lateral eye movements (LEM) have also been used as a
measure of hemispheric activation. LEM towards the right
have been interpreted as reflecting left hemisphere
activation, while LEM to the left is suggestive of right
hemisphere activation. Initial findings revealed more LEMs
to the left during emotional experience (Davidson &
Schwartz, 1976; Schwartz, Davidson, & Maer, 1975; Tucker,
Roth, Arneson, & Buckingham, 1977). Ahern and Schwartz
(1979) investigated lateral eye movement in response to

31
reflective questions in normal subjects. They found that
positive emotional questions evoked more LEMs to the left.
They interpreted this as left hemisphere specialization for
positive emotions and right hemisphere specialization for
negative emotions. However, the lateral eye movement
methodology has been criticized (Erlichman & Weinberger,
1978) .
Research on mood
Observation of mood after hemispheric damage has also
been viewed as supporting the bivalent model. Sackheim et
al. (1982) reported that pathological laughing was more
likely to be associated with RHD and pathological crying was
associated with LHD. Additionally, they found that patients
with right hemispherectomies were judged to be euphoric in
mood, while patients with left hemispherectomies were not.
Also, they examined published case reports of gelastic
epileptics, typified by laughing outbursts during ictal
experience, with either left or right lateralized ictal
foci. They found that ictal foci in gelastic epileptics was
predominately left-sided. Based on previous literature, the
authors suggested that the laughing outburst which occurred
during ictal experience were caused by hyperactivity in the
focal area. These authors concluded that both disinhibition
and excitation cause different manifestations in mood in the
right and left hemispheres.

32
Robinson and his colleagues have investigated
depressive symptoms following stroke in both right and left
hemisphere patients. In two studies, Robinson and Price
(1982) and Robinson et al. (1984) found that patients with
left hemisphere strokes were more depressed than patients
with right hemisphere strokes. Starkstein, Robinson, and
Price (1987) also noted that right hemisphere patients were
indifferent and sometimes euphoric immediately following
stroke. Additionally, Robinson and Szetela (1981) reported
that patients with traumatic brain injury, while equally as
impaired cognitively and physically, were not as depressed
as stroke patients. Consequently, frequency and severity of
depression is not solely related to amount of physical and
cognitive impairment.
Differences in mood depending on caudality (anterior
versus posterior location) of the lesions were also observed
(Robinson et al., 1984). The left anterior group showed
significantly more overall depression than the left
posterior group, whereas the right posterior group were more
depressed than right anterior group. Similarly, Starkstein
et al. (1987) reported that when depression was present in
RHD patients, it was associated with parietal lesions.
Additionally, depression was found to be correlated with
closeness of the lesion to the frontal pole (Robinson &
Szetela, 1981; Starkstein, Robinson, and Price, 1987).

33
In a subsequent study, Sinyor, et al. (1986) assessed
both cognitive and vegetative signs of depression using a
variety of verbal report measures in unilateral stroke
patients. Contrary to the above findings, no overall
differences in depression were found between groups.
However, consistent with the above findings, severity of
depression in LHD patients was positively related to
proximity of the lesion to the frontal pole. In addition, a
curvilinear relationship was found for RHD patients such
that both anterior and posterior lesions were associated
with depression. Moreover, House et al. (1990) reported
that RHD patients may be depressed more than is believed,
but due to their deficits in emotional communication, their
depression goes undetected.
Taken together, the results are equivocal. There is
evidence in support of differential moods in left and right
hemisphere damaged patients. Some investigators suggested
that RHD patients express enhanced cheerfulness (e.g.,
Terzian, 1964), and LHD patients express or report
experiencing more depression than RHD patients (e.g.,
Robinson et al., 1984). However, other investigators found
no differences in depressed mood between LHD and RHD
patients. Additionally, some studies revealed that during
negative emotion, greater EEG activation was associated with
anterior right activation. In contrast, during positive
emotion, greater EEG activation was associated with anterior

34
left activation. However, EEG activation of right frontal
and right parietal regions was associated with emotion
intensity. Also, inferring hemispheric activation using
LEM, findings supported greater right hemisphere activation
during negative emotion experience and left hemisphere
activation during positive emotion experience, but LEM
methodology has also been criticized.
Specific bivalent models
In general, the bivalent model posits that the left
hemisphere is specialized for positive/approach emotions and
the right hemisphere is specialized for negative/avoidance
emotions. However, there are many variations of the general
bivalent model. Kinsbourne and Bemporad (1984) suggested
that the left fronto-temporal cortex exerts action control,
defined as manipulating external stimuli. They argued that
left posterior parietal cortex sends exteroceptive input to
the left fronto-temporal cortex. The right fronto-temporal
cortex, on the other hand, controls emotional, internal
arousal, while the right posterior cortex relays
interoceptive information to the emotional control system.
Consequently, in patients with right focal lesions,
meaningfulness of environmental stimuli is deficient. Thus,
RHD patients experience inappropriate emotionality.
Additionally, Kinsbourne and Bemporad explained that the RH
is specialized for monitoring both positive and negative
emotional valence, but positive states enhance motivation

35
and readiness to act which are left hemisphere attributes.
Specifically, passivity and involvement in perceptual
judgement relates to RH activation, whereas overt responses
or covert response planning is associated with left
hemisphere activation.
Davidson and his colleagues (Fox and Davidson,1984;
Davidson, 1985; Davidson et al., 1990) proposed a similar
theory. They purported that the behavioral dimension of
approach-withdrawal is the organizing dimension for
hemispheric specialization in that the right hemisphere is
specialized for withdrawal emotions such as disgust, whereas
the left hemisphere is specialized for approach emotions
such as interest. In addition, Davidson (1985) postulated
there are reciprocal relations between the frontal and
parietal lobes. Specifically, left frontal activation is
balanced by right parietal activation and vice versa. For
example, he stated that spatial cognition (right parietal)
and positive affect (left frontal) are more likely to occur
concurrently than verbal cognition (left parietal) and
positive affect.
Heller (1990) posited a similar view. She asserted
that the right hemisphere may be specialized for
interpretation of emotion, but not specialized for the
regulation of mood. Heller also emphasized the importance
of distinguishing between the functions of the anterior and
posterior regions of the brain, citing evidence that the

36
right temporal parietal regions are involved in
interpretation of emotional information and evidence that
implicates the frontal regions of both hemispheres in the
experience of mood. Heller (1990) stated that the right
parietal cortex mediates both cortical and autonomic
arousal, while bilateral frontal regions mediate valence.
She purported that experience of emotion is associated with
patterns of activation in frontal and parietal brain
regions.
Summary
As reviewed in the preceding sections, most evidence
supportive of the bivalent model has been derived from two
lines of research. These include: (a) findings of different
mood reactions following right versus left hemisphere
lesions, particularly those involving the anterior regions;
and (b) findings in normals of hemispheric EEG activation
asymmetries during induction of positive versus negative
mood. In contrast, data from neuropsychological studies of
affect perception are more in line with the view that the
right hemisphere is critically involved in appraising
nonverbal emotional signals, regardless of their valence.
The discrepancy between such studies corresponds to the
distinction raised by Heller (1990) between interpretation
of emotion (viewed to be right hemisphere dependent) versus
the regulation of mood (which is not viewed to be right
hemisphere specific).

37
Observations that RHD patients are autonomically
hypoaroused in response to affective scenes (relative to NHD
and LHD patients) have been interpreted as support for a
dominant role of the right hemisphere in emotional arousal.
However, this interpretation is not without question given
that such studies have generally measured autonomic
responsivity only in response to neutral and unpleasant
scenes (Meadows & Kaplan, 1992; Zoccolatti et al., 1982) or
situations (Heilman et al., 1978). Pleasant scenes or
stimulus materials have not been used in such studies and it
remains unknown whether stroke of the right hemisphere
equally attenuate autonomic reactivity to pleasant scenes.
In and of itself, the current existing data that RHD stroke
patients are hypoaroused to negative-affective scenes are
equally consistent with the bivalent as well as the global
right hemisphere model. Of relevance, Morris et al. (1991)
recently reported valence-specific hypoarousal in a patient
following a right temporal lobectomy. Skin conductance
responses were obtained to unpleasant (mutilations),
pleasant (attractive nudes), and neutral (breadbaskets)
slides. This patient showed abnormally reduced SCR to
unpleasant but normal SCR to pleasant and neutral slides, a
pattern of findings that is consistent with a bivalent
model. Had only unpleasant scenes been used in this study
one would not be able to logically distinguish between the
bivalent and global right hemisphere model. For this

38
reason, it is crucial to include both pleasant and
unpleasant scenes or situations when studying
psychophysiological responses in neuropsychological
investigations of emotion. Such was employed in this study.
Before discussing the proposed study more fully, a
brief overview of relevant literature on emotional
psychophysiology will be presented. This is being done
since the current study will include several
psychophysiological indices (i.e., skin conductance, heart
rate, facial electromyography) for assessing emotional
responsivity in patients with right or left hemisphere
lesions.
Emotional Psychophysiology
Autonomic Responding
At the psychophysiological level, the relationship
between autonomic activity and emotion has been recognized
for centuries. Recent technological advances have made the
prospect of online physiological measurement more feasible.
Theorists have attempted to understand the factors which
influence skin conductance and heart rate. Sokolov (1963)
described two types of responses which occur during
conditioning: orienting and defensive reactions. He
purported that the purpose of the orienting response (OR) is
to increase sensitivity to incoming stimuli and that it
includes both a transient increase in skin conductance. The
defensive response (DR), on the other hand, is evoked in

39
response to high intensity or aversive stimuli and helps the
organism to limit activity with the stimulus. This response
includes increases in sympathetic activity such as cephalic
vasoconstriction and increase in skin conductance.
Lacey and Lacey (1970) extended Sokolov's views of
autonomic responding. They suggested that heart rate
acceleration (tachycardia) during acute affective states is
not a index of arousal per se, but reflects instead the
organism's attempt to limit or terminate bodily turmoil
produced by some stimulus. By contrast, heart rate
deceleration (bradycardia) is induced with intention to
respond to a task, attention to stimuli, and during
vicariously experienced stress. Thus, Lacey and Lacey
argued that the cardiovascular system is not a nonspecific
index of arousal, but a highly specialized response
mechanism which is integrated with affect and cognition and
which also reveals individual differences in the way people
deal with the environment.
Graham and Clifton (1966) pointed out that Sokolov
(1963) and the Laceys (1958) agreed on the existence of an
orienting and defensive response. However, Graham and
Clifton indicated that they did not agree on the
relationship between orienting and defensive responses and
heart rate. Sokolov inferred that heart rate (HR)
acceleration was related to increased sensitivity of
incoming stimuli, whereas HR deceleration was related to

40
decreased sensitivity of incoming stimuli. The Laceys
hypothesized the reverse pattern. In their thorough review
of the literature, Graham and Clifton concluded that, in
fact, the Laceys hypotheses have been supported in that HR
deceleration is associated with orienting and HR
acceleration is associated with defensive responding.
A large body of research exists in which the autonomic
correlates of affective states have been investigated.
Throughout the second half of this century, researchers have
systematically explored the relationship between emotion and
psychophysiological measures including skin conductance and
heart rate. Early studies of systematic desensitization in
phobic patients revealed that as the subjects imagined more
fearful images, HR and skin conductance responses (SCR)
increased (Lang, Melamad, & Hart, 1970) .
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, a series of studies
by Hare and colleagues indicated that slides of mutilated
bodies evoked HR deceleration, an orienting response (OR).
These results were initially confusing because it had been
hypothesized that the slides would evoke fear and HR
acceleration, a defense response (DR). Upon reanalyzing his
data (Hare, 1972), it was found that some subjects had
consistently reacted with HR acceleration, some with marked
deceleration, and some with moderate deceleration.
Subsequently, researchers explored the differing
reactions of phobics and nonphobics in response to affective

41
slides. The findings indicated that presentation of a
feared object resulted in initial HR acceleration, e.g.,
(DR), while presentation of a nonfeared object results in HR
deceleration, e.g., (OR) (Hare, 1973; Klorman, Weissberg, &
Wiesenfeld, 1977; Klorman, Wiesenfeld & Austin, 1975) .
Additionally, SCR was elevated with the presentation of
fearful stimuli (e.g., Klorman, Weissberg, & Wiesenfeld,
1977) and, in some studies, the amount of elevation was
higher for phobics (Klorman, Wiesenfeld & Austin, 1975).
Imagery has also been used to evoke emotional states.
It is important to note that during imagery, autonomic
responsivity (i.e., HR and SCR) is influenced not only by
the affective state, but also by other factors such as
imagery instructions and the subjects' ability to image
(Lang, Kozak, Miller, & Levin, 1980; Miller, Levin, Kozak,
Cook, McLean, & Lang, 1987. Vrana, Cuthbert, and Lang
(1986) found that normal subjects verbally reported
experiencing more arousal, more unpleasantness, and less
control during fear imagery than during neutral imagery.
Fear images also evoked HR acceleration which lasted over a
10 second period. In contrast, neutral images produced
acceleration followed by deceleration. Thus, HR and
subjective report distinguished fearful from neutral
imagery.
Taken together, the results of these studies are
consistent with the views of Graham and Clifton (1966) and

42
Lacey and Lacey (1970). Heart rate typically increases in
response to feared stimuli when presented visually or
imagined. On the other hand, HR deceleration follows the
visual presentation of a novel or interesting stimulus,
whereas imaging of a novel or interesting stimuli produces
HR acceleration followed by deceleration.
Facial Electromyography (EMG)
Before describing the facial electromyography research,
the neuroanatomical pathways involved in facial muscle
movements will be briefly reviewed. Motor neurons send
information from the brain to innervate muscle and can be
distinguished from sensory neurons which bring information
to the brain. There are two types of motor neurons: upper
motor neurons (UMN) and lower motor neurons (LMN). Upper
motor neurons carry impulses from motor centers in the brain
to the brain stem and spinal cord. Lower motor neurons
carry information from brain stem and spinal cord to
muscles. At the UMN level, fibers from either the
contralateral or both hemispheres supply impulses to the LMN
nucleus, the motor nucleus of the facial nerve, which
innervates muscles of facial expression. The voluntary and
involuntary motor pathways mediating facial expression are
distinct from one another. Voluntary movement is mediated
by the corticobulbar tract, originating in the precentral
gyrus of the motor cortex of the frontal lobe. The
involuntary pathway includes the basal ganglia, red nucleus,

43
and midbrain reticular formation. (Rinn, 1984) . Although
the pathways of voluntary and involuntary emotions are
different, the measurement of facial expressions are the
same regardless of the volitional quality of the expression.
Detailed facial coding systems, such as Ekman's FACS
(Ekman & Friesen, 1978) and Izard's MAX (1978) have been
used to measure minute muscle movements of the face.
Because these rating systems are quite time intensive and
because spontaneous facial muscle activity is often brief
and too small to be observed overtly, facial
electromyography (EMG) has sometimes been used to measure
subtle changes in muscle movements. The most common facial
muscle regions measured using EMG are the corrugator
supercilli (brow) and zygomatic major (cheek) muscles
regions. Various methods have been used to induce emotional
states while EMG of the corrugator and zygomatic muscles
have been measured. These emotion eliciting procedures have
included imagery, viewing affective slides, self-referential
statements, and self-disclosing interview. Consequently,
the facial expressions that accompany these emotion
induction procedures involve involuntary/spontaneous facial
movements. The UMN innervation of the corrugator muscle is
bilateral, whereas the UMN innervation of the zygomatic is
contralateral (Rinn, 1984). Thus, muscle activity in the
left and right corrugator regions cannot be activated

44
independently, but muscle activity of the left and right
zygomatic regions can be stimulated separately.
During affective imagery, positive emotional states
have been associated with decreased corrugator and increased
zygomatic activity. Conversely, negative emotional states
have been associated with increased corrugator activity and
decreased zygomatic activity (Schwartz et al., 1976a,
1976b). Also, when verbal report of emotions has been
obtained, corrugator activity positively correlates with
unpleasant emotions and negatively correlates with pleasant
emotions. The opposite pattern has been found for zygomatic
activity (Brown & Schwartz, 1980; McCanne & Anderson, 1987;
Slomine and Greene, 1993). Similar results have been
reported from other investigators using self-referent
statements designed to induce either elation or depression
(Sirota, Schwartz, & Xristeller, 1987), and affective slides
(Cacioppo, Petty, Lasch, and Kim, 1986). Additionally, an
interview technique was employed to elicit and investigate
naturally occurring emotional states (Cacioppo, Martzke,
Petty and Tassinary, 1988). Replicating previous findings,
elevations in corrugator EMG were related to lower positive
emotion ratings and higher negative emotional ratings.
In sum, the above studies attest to the importance of
the covert activity of the corrugator supercilli and
zygomatic major muscles as indexes of emotion.
Specifically, EMG activity of the corrugator supercilli has

45
been consistently found to increase during exposure to
stimuli rated as unpleasant or during the reported
experience of unpleasant affect. Conversely, activity of
the zygomatic major has been found to increase during the
report of positive emotional states.
Facial and Autonomic Studies
Few studies have included measures of both facial and
autonomic responding. In one study of affective slides
viewing, Greenwald, Cook, and Lang (1989) examined emotional
ratings, HR, SCR, zygomatic and corrugator EMG. Zygomatic
activity was positively related to pleasure ratings and
corrugator activity was negatively related. Zygomatic EMG,
however, also increased during unpleasant slides viewing.
Neither muscle site was related to arousal ratings. Phasic
HR acceleration was positively related to valence ratings,
but not arousal. This relationship was weaker than the
valence/EMG relationship. Skin conductance responses were
significantly related to increased arousal ratings, but not
valence ratings. Quite similar results were found when
autonomic and facial responding were measured during imagery
(York, 1991; Bradley, Lang, & Cuthbert (1991) in that HR
acceleration and SCR were larger for pleasant and unpleasant
compared to neutral imagery, and corrugator EMG was higher
for the unpleasant compared to pleasant and neutral imagery.
Ekman and colleagues have found that giving subjects
either muscle-by-muscle instructions to contract voluntary

46
sets of facial expression and asking subjects to relive a
past emotional experience produced similar autonomic
changes, i.e., increases in HR and SCR (Ekman, Levenson, &
Friesen, 1983; Levenson, Ekman, and Friesen, 1990) . These
authors concluded that there are biologically innate affect
programs which, when activated, provide instructions to
multiple response systems including skeletal muscles,
facial muscles, and the autonomic nervous system.
Taken together, the above research suggests that
zygomatic EMG increases with reported pleasantness, and
somewhat with extreme unpleasantness. Corrugator EMG
increases with reported unpleasantness. Skin conductance
responses are positively related to reported experience of
arousal, which can be induced through pleasant or unpleasant
emotional states. Heart rate, however, is variable and
depends on many factors such as reported affect, type of
evoking stimuli, and individual differences in responding.
However, during the presentation of emotional slides, HR
acceleration is positively related to valence, but
acceleration may be associated with aversive rather than
pleasant stimuli when phobics are presented with their fear
object. During imagery, HR typically accelerates during
both pleasant and unpleasant scenes. Additionally,
voluntary facial expressions produce changes in the
autonomic nervous system consistent with other tasks used to
induce emotional experience.

Anticipation of Affective Stimuli
Anticipation of affective stimuli has also been used to
elicit emotion. Lang, Ohman, and Simons (1978) described
the triphasic response of cardiac activity during a 4-8
second anticipation period. They reported that the onset of
the preparatory period is characterized by a brief
deceleration (Dl). The initial deceleration is followed by
an acceleratory peak (Al). Lastly, a deceleration occurs
which lasts until the end of the preparatory interval (D2).
Dl is observed when subjects are presented with single pure
tones which are not followed by other stimuli and is thought
to be an index of orientation. The acceleratory phase is
seen in response to an abrupt stimulus or single stimulus
with an uncomfortable intensity level. Al has been
interpreted as an index of a defensive reflex. It has also
been evoked in the absence of noxious stimuli and during
problem solving or mentation.
According to Lang et. al (1978), most investigators
interpret the second deceleration, D2, as an index of
anticipation of an overt response. D2, however, has been
conditioned in classical conditioning paradigm even though
no motor response is required. Consequently, D2 has also
been viewed as an index of an attentive set. Similar HR
patterns have been found by Simons, Ohman, and Lang (1979)
in response to anticipation of slides (Simons, Ohman, &
Lang, 1979; Klorman & Ryan, 1980) .

48
There is a large body of literature based on
anticipation of aversive stimuli. In one study, cluster
analysis was used to identify different patterns of HR
responses during anticipation of aversive noise (Hodes,
Cook, Sc Lang, 1985) . Results indicated that there were
three types of responders; accelerators, decelerators, and
moderate decelerators similar to the groups obtained by Hare
(1972). The authors concluded that both the accelerators
and decelerators developed the expectancy that the CS+ would
precede the presentation of UCS. Accelerators, however,
associated fear with the CS+, while the decelerators did
not. The authors suggested that because the classical
aversive conditioning paradigm specifies no overt response
set, the subjects spontaneously assumed a response
disposition. Specifically, some responded with an
anticipatory, attentive set demonstrated by decelerators,
whereas others displayed an implicit avoidance characterized
by a defensive response. Moderate decelerators showed
discordance between verbal and physiological behavior.
Thus, these subjects maintained an attentive set, but
evaluated the stimuli as aversive instead of interesting.
The authors concluded that "It is conceivable that the
tactile assault of shock is necessary to consistently elicit
DR's to such potentially skin mordant stimuli as snakes and
spiders," (p.555).

49
Psychophysiological responses of HR and skin
conductance have been measured during anticipation of
electric shock. Deane (1961) found that during anticipation
of shock, HR accelerated over the baseline level.
Additionally, in the groups who expected to receive shock
when a 'target' number was presented, there was HR
deceleration immediately preceding that number, even though,
in one of these groups no shock had ever been received.
These finding have been replicated (Elliot, 1966; Deane,
1969; Hodges & Spielberger, 1966). Threat of electric shock
has also been found to produce increases in SCR (Bowers,
1971a, 1971b). Positron emission tomography (PET)
measurements of regional blood flow have also been obtained
during anticipation of electric shock (Reiman, Fusselman,
Fox, & Raichle, 1989). Reiman and colleagues found that
during anticipatory anxiety, there was significant blood
flow increases to both temporal poles.
The investigation of the psychophysiology of pleasant
and appetitive anticipation has received minimal attention
in the experimental human literature. Consequently,
psychophysiological responding during pleasant anticipation
must be inferred from other studies. Based on the results
of the above literature, it is likely that anticipation of
pleasant stimuli would evoke physiological changes similar
to those found during presentation of pleasant stimuli
(i.e., increased zygomatic EMG and SCR) . Also, based on the

50
above studies of anticipation during nonaversive
anticipation (Simons, et al., 1979; Klorman & Ryan, 1980),
HR is primarily deceleratory.
Summary
Psychophysiological measures of heart rate (HR), skin
conductance responding (SCR), corrugator electromyography
(CEMG), and zygomatic electromyography (ZEMG) have all been
used as indices of emotional psychophysiology. Alone, each
of these measures has been associated with various
psychological phenomenon. For example, SCR has been
associated with mental effort, attentive movements or
attitudes, painful stimuli, variations in respiratory rate,
along with emotional arousal and various other psychological
phenomenon (Cacioppo & Tassinary, 1990). Increased heart
rate has also been associated with various psychological
phenomenon including startle, mental effort, and defensive
responding ^Cacioppo & Tassinary, 1990). In addition,
corrugator electromyography has been associated with
concentration as well as unpleasant emotional experience
(Cacioppo, Petty, & Morris, 1985).
Because changes in heart rate, skin conductance, and
facial EMG have all been found to be associated with
psychological phenomenon other than emotional experience,
changes in one of these variables is not necessarily
indicative of emotional experience. However, examination of
multiple variables over time has revealed specific

51
physiological response patterning which results in a one-to-
one relationship with experience of emotional states. Thus,
it is necessary to investigate patterns of physiological
behavior over time in order to infer the presence of a
psychological phenomenon based on physiological responding
(Cacioppo Sc Tassinary, 1990) .
Critical Issues
As reviewed earlier, there are two opposing views of
how the cerebral hemispheres differ in their contributions
to emotional processing. However, the precise role played
by each hemisphere remains unclear. Some investigators have
proposed that the right hemisphere is globally involved in
all aspects of emotional processing including evaluation,
expression, activation, and experience of emotion (Heilman
et al., 1985). Others researchers have suggested that each
hemisphere is specialized for a different type of emotion
(Fox Sc Davidson, 1984 ; Kinsbourne & Bemporad, 1984; Tucker,
1981; Heller, 1990). The mcst popular version of the
bivalent view is that the left hemisphere is dominant for-
positive/approach emotions, while the right hemisphere is
dominant for negative/avoidance emotions.
Along with differences in laterality of emotional
processing, investigators have speculated about differences
in emotional processing based on caudality, i.e., anterior
versus posterior regions of the brain. For example, studies
of interpretation of emotional information implicate the

52
right temporal and parietal regions (e.g., Bowers et al.,
1987), whereas studies of emotional mood have implicated the
frontal lobes (e.g., Davidson, 1984).
Heller (1990) has interpreted the literature in terms
of type of emotional processing, such that "cold" or
nonexperienced emotional processing is modulated by the
right posterior region. In addition, she posited that
"warm" or experienced positive emotion is processed
predominantly by the left hemisphere, whereas "warm or
experienced negative emotion is processed predominantly by
the right hemisphere. According to Heller, the majority of
evidence in support of the right hemisphere model of emotion
comes from studies which have investigated cognitive
processing of information in brain damaged and normal
subjects, whereas most evidence in support of the bivalent
models of emotion has been derived from lateralization of
mood states. Heller suggested that there is no reason to
assume that because a hemisphere is associated with a
particular mood state, that it must be specific for
cognitive representations of that emotion.
In order to distinguish among the ability of the global
and bivalent models to explain emotional experience, it is
necessary to evoke emotion with both positive/approach and
negative/withdrawal emotions. Because RHD patients have
difficulty interpreting emotional stimuli, including faces
and prosody (e.g., Bowers et al. , 1987), it is difficult to

53
evoke emotional states in the laboratory. Thus, using an in
vivo situation in which nonverbal emotional stimuli do not
have to be interpreted would be useful in evoking emotion in
RHD patients. Ideally, it is crucial for positive and
negative emotions to be equally arcusing. Unfortunately, it
is difficult to equate in vivo positive and negative
emotional experiences in emotional arousal because highly
arousing negative emotional experience is much easier to
experimentally induce than highly arcusing positive
emotional experience.
It is important to define emotional experience and how
it can be measured. As mentioned above, emotional
experience is defined as a phenomenon which can be
indirectly measured using physiological measures (e.g., HR
and SCR), overt behavior (e.g., facial expression, in this
case measured using CEMG and ZEMG), and verbal report (e.g.,
paper and pencil assessment measures). In normal subjects
these three response systems have usually been found to be
concordant; however, discordant responses have been revealed
in pathological populations (Patrick, Bradley, & Lang,
1991). These discordant results may imply that the three
response systems are mediated by different subsystems. In
brain damaged patients discordance is often observed. For
example, patients with pseudobulbar laughter display overt
behaviors of emotion, but verbally deny feelings associated
with emotion (Heilman, Bowers, & Valenstein, 1993). These

54
results imply that there is a defect in the mediation output
systems, such that behaviorally the patient responds, but
without the corresponding subjective experience of emotion.
Due to the inability in directly measuring subjective
experience, the ability to interpret discordance in response
systems is weakened. To illustrate, two groups, A and B,
are investigated during emotion-eliciting experiences. Both
A and B verbally report experiencing emotion. However,
group A does not exhibit psychophysiological measures
indicative of emotion. Are the subjective emotional
experiences of group A and B different? There are two
possible interpretations: (1) they are experiencing
qualitatively different emotional experiences, such that
group A's experience of emotion is more "cognitive" than
group B's experience, or (2) they are experiencing the same
emotional experiences, but group A has a problem with the
feedforward system of emotional psychophysiological
responding. Because interpretation includes inferences
about subjective experiences, neither interpretation can be
proven correct or rejected as invalid. It is unclear, at
this time, how patients with unilateral damage experience
emotion based on the interaction of these three response
systems. Specifically, it is unknown whether unilateral
lesions would produce concordance or discordance of
emotional experience.

55
It is important to consider the constraints that are
placed on evaluating emotional experience in patients with
focal lesions. For example, left hemisphere damaged
patients often have difficulty with language, which may
affect their verbal report data. To minimize this problem
in the present study, severely aphasic patients would not be
used and only verbal report measures with simple language
were used. Also, right hemisphere damaged patients often
have difficulties with visual attention, neglect, and
vigilance. Consequently, adequate attention to the task at
hand must be insured among RHD patients.
To study emotional experience, it is important to
measure all three response systems; verbal report, overt
behaviors, and physiological indices. One way to better
understand the neuropsychology of emotional experience is to
use paradigms which are highly sensitive to emotional
responding. The present study focused on an anticipation
paradigm (Reiman et al., 1989) designed to investigate
verbal report, heart rate, skin conductance, and facial
responses associated with emotion. In order to examine the
psychophysiology of emotional experience, an "in vivo"
situation was used. Using anticipation of "in vivo"
aversive and pleasant stimuli, it was easier for patients to
interpret the emotional meaning of the situations because
they did not have to analyze the affective quality of
various perceptual stimuli.

CHAPTER 2
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The purpose of the present study was to broadly examine
emotional responsivity of RHD and LHD patients in affect-
evoking situations and determine whether the pattern of
responses obtained from these patients was more in line with
predictions of a global right hemisphere model versus a
bivalent hemisphere emotion model. To examine this verbal
report, autonomic measures of arousal (SCR, HR), and indices
of facial muscle movement (EMG) were be collected in
situations that are known to elicit negative (anticipation
of shock) and positive responses (anticipation of reward) in
normals.
To date, few neuropsychological studies of emotion with
focal lesion patients have concurrently investigated more
than one component of emotional responsivity. That is,
either autonomic indices have been obtained (Heilman,
Schwartz, & Watson, 1978) or verbal report of mood states
have been obtained (Robinson & Price, 1982) . No study to
date has used facial EMG to examine emotional responsivity
in focal lesion patients. Facial EMG may potentially be a
useful tool in that it has been shown to be sensitive to
56

57
changes in the reported experience of valence in normal
individuals (Greenwald et al., 1989).
Further, those patient studies that have examined
psychophysiological indices of arousal in response to
emotional stimuli have typically used perceptual stimuli
(i.e., affective scenes) which must be accurately
"interpreted" in order to induce emotion. Patients with RHD
are known to have an array of visuoperceptual and
hemispatial attentional scanning difficulties which can
potentially interfere with their interpretation of such
stimuli. Consequently, findings that RHD patients are
autonomically hypoaroused in response to emotional scenes
may, in part, be secondary to difficulties in interpreting
these stimuli.
To avoid such confounding, the present study used "in
vivo" situations to elicit negative and positive emotions
among focal lesion patients. An anticipatory anxiety
paradigm adopted from Reiman et al. (1989) was used to
induce negative emotion (i.e., anxiety). In this paradigm,
subjects are told that they would sometimes receive a mild
shock. Findings with normals reveal changes in autonomic
arousal during the period that the subject is awaiting shock
in conjunction with self reports of increased levels of
anxiety (as measured by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory).
An anticipatory reward paradigm was used to induce positive
emotion. Here, subjects were told that they would sometimes

58
receive monetary reward (i.e., dollar bills or lottery
tickets).
The specific objectives of this study are to determine:
(a) whether patients with RHD or LHD become autonomically
aroused in these in vivo emotional situations (as indexed by
HR and SCR changes); (b) whether they display contraction of
facial muscles (as measured by EMG indices) that correspond
to the positive-negative nature of the emotional situation;
and (c) whether they explicitly report subjective changes in
their emotional experiences (as measured by their responses
to questionnaires).
According to the global right hemisphere emotion model,
the RHD patients should display attenuated responsivity
across all three response domains (arousal, facial, verbal
report) in both the negative and positive emotion-eliciting
situations. In other words, relative to the LHD group, the
RHD patients should be less autonomically aroused, show
minimal facial muscle contractions, and report less intense
changes in their subjective experience of emotion.
Diminished responding by RHD patients would be observed in
both the anticipatory anxiety paradigm, as well as the
anticipatory reward task.
According to the bivalent hemisphere emotion model, the
responses of the RHD and LHD patients would vary as a
function of the positive-negative nature of the induced
emotional situation. Specifically, the RHD group would show

59
diminished autonomic responsivity and less intense reports
of emotional experience in the anticipatory anxiety task
relative to the anticipatory reward task, whereas the LHD
group would show the opposite pattern.
Overview of Experimental Design
Patients with RHD, LHD, and NHD participated in two
experiments. Both experiments consisted of two parts, an
anticipatory anxiety task and an anticipatory reward task.
In the first experiment, a two-stimulus paradigm (see Vrana,
Cuthbert, & Lang, 1989) was used in both the anticipatory
anxiety and anticipatory reward tasks. Specifically, one
warning tone signaled that the subject would receive shock
stimulation during the subsequent six seconds, whereas the
other tone signaled that shock would not occur. Prior to
the beginning of the task, subjects learned which tone would
be associated with shock and which with no shock. An
analogous two-stimulus paradigm was used in the anticipatory
reward task. Psychophysiological measures of arousal (HR,
SCR) and facial EMG (ccrrugator and zygomatic) were obtained
during the six second anticipatory interval.
In the second experiment, a slightly different paradigm
was used to examine anticipatory anxiety and reward in RHD
and LHD patients. Specifically, there was a 5 minute
interval (versus 6 seconds in Experiment 1) during which the
subject awaited shock (or reward). Five-minute control
trials were also be given in which the subject is told that

60
no shock (or reward) would be presented. During these 5-
minute anticipatory intervals, subjects were administered
brief mood questionnaires (i.e., Positive and Negative
Affect Schedule and Self-Assessment Manikin).
The use of the 5-minute paradigm in Experiment 2 is
more suitable for obtaining self-report information, whereas
the use of 6-second two-stimulus paradigm in Experiment 1 is
more suitable for obtaining reliable brief
psychophysiological indices of emotion.
Hypotheses and Predictions
Overall Hypotheses
According to the global right hemisphere model, emotion
is modulated predominantly by the right hemisphere.
Consequently, the global model hypothesizes that patients
with RHD will display attenuated responsivity, relative to
the LHD group, across all three response domains (arousal,
facial, and verbal report) in both negative and positive
emotion-evoking situations.
In contrast, the bivalent model posits that
positive/approach emotions are mediated by the left
hemisphere and negative/avoidance emotions are mediated by
the right hemisphere. According to the bivalent model, the
responses of the RHD and LHD patients would vary as a
function of valence (positive-negative nature) of the
induced emotion. Specifically, the RHD group would show
diminished responses in all three response domains (arousal,

61
facial, and verbal report) during the anticipatory anxiety
(negative emotion) situation relative to their responses
during anticipatory reward (positive emotion). The LHD
group would show the opposite pattern.
Specific Predictions for Experiment 1: Psvchophvsioloqical
Arousal and Facial EMG during Anticipatory Anxiety and
Anticipatory Reward in Patients with RHP and LHD
Normal control group (NHD)
In line with previous research, it is anticipated that
the normal control group (NHD) will experience unpleasant
emotion (anticipatory anxiety) during the shock anticipation
condition and more pleasant emotion (anticipatory reward)
during the prize anticipation. Specific predictions
regarding psychophysiological responsivity (HR, SCR) and
facial EMG are derived from empirical research with emotion-
inducing stimuli. A replication of previous findings is
expected such that:
1. Compared to baseline HR, a HR triphasic response (Dl,
Al, D2) will be observed during shock anticipation and
prize anticipation. The A1, acceleratory peak, is
expected to be greater during shock than during prize
anticipation. In some subjects, however, deceleration
only may be observed during prize anticipation.
Relative to the experimental trials, attenuated HR
change will occur during control trials.
2. Compared to baseline SCR, SCR will be greater during
shock and prize anticipation compared to no shock/no

62
reward control trials. Additionally, SCR will decrease
over trials.
3. Compared to baseline corrugator EMG, corrugator EMG
(CEMG) will be elevated during shock anticipation and
will remain relatively unchanged during prize and
control trials.
4. Compared to baseline zygomatic EMG. zygomatic EMG (ZEMG)
will increase during prize anticipation. Additionally,
a smaller increase may be revealed during shock
anticipation. Also, ZEMG will not change from baseline
during control trials.
Focal Lesion Patients (RHP and LHP)
Predictions for the RHD and LHD patients differ
depending on the global right hemisphere emotion model
versus the bivalent model. Specific predictions for the
right hemisphere emotion model will be first presented and
then followed by those from the bivalent model.
A) Global Right Hemisphere Emotion Model: According to this
view, patients with right hemisphere damage are relatively
blunted in their emotional responsivity and experience of
emotion. Thus, RHD patients will experience less anxiety
and positive feelings during the shock and prize conditions,
respectively, relative to the NHD and LHD subjects. In
contrast, LHD patients may experience more intense emotional
responsivity than NHD subjects. Specific predictions are as
follows:

63
1. During shock and prize anticipation, LHD subjects will
display similar or accentuated HR response patterns
compared to normal controls, whereas RHD subjects will
display decreased HR responding relative to normal
controls. HR responding will be greater for the LHD
and NHD groups during shock and prize trials compared
to control trials. HR responding for the RHD group-
will not differ between shock, prize and no shock/no
reward control trials.
2. During both shock and prize anticipation, LHD patients
will display greater SCR than the normal controls. For
the RHD patients, SCR will be smaller than that of the
LHD and NHD patients. SCR will be greater during shock
and prize trials than control trials for the LHD and
NHD groups, whereas the difference in SCR for the RHD
group between shock, prize, no shock/no reward control
trials will be smaller.
3. During shock anticipation, corrugator EMG reactivity
will be similar or greater for LHD compared to the NHD
patients, whereas RHD patients will show smaller
corrugator EMG compared to NHD patients. For LHD and
NHD patients corrugator EMG will be greater for shock
trials than no shock trials. However, differences in
corrugator EMG will be smaller between shock and no
shock control trials in RHD patients.

64
4. During prize anticipation, zygomatic EMG reactivity will
be similar or greater for LHD compared to NHD patients,
whereas RHD patients will show smaller zygomatic EMG
compared to NHD patients. For LHD and NHD groups,
zygomatic EMG will be greater for prize compared to no
reward trials. However, differences in zygomatic EMG
will be attenuated between prize and no prize control
trials in RHD patients.
B) Bivalent Emotion Model: According to this view, patients
with RHD should demonstrate attenuated anxiety during the
shock anticipation condition (relative to NHD controls), and
either normal or enhanced pleasant feelings during
anticipatory reward condition. In contrast, patients with
LHD should demonstrate attenuated pleasant feelings during
the anticipatory reward condition (relative to NHD subjects)
and either normal or enhanced negative feelings during the
anticipatory shock task. These results may be most
pronounced in patients with anterior-extending lesions.
Specific predictions are as follows:
1. During shock anticipation, the LHD subjects will have
greater or similar HR responding compared to the NHD
group, whereas RHD subjects will have smaller HR
responding relative to NHD subjects. Additionally, LHD
and NHD patients will display greater HR responding
during shock relative to no shock trials, whereas HR
responding in RHD patients will not differ between

65
shock and no shock trials. During prize anticipation,
RHD subjects will have greater or similar HR responding
compared to normal controls, whereas LHD patients will
have smaller HR responding relative to NHD patients.
Also, RHD and NHD groups will display greater HR
responding during prize relative to no reward control
trials, whereas LHD patients will not differ between
prize and no prize trials.
2. During shock anticipation, the LHD patients will have
greater or similar SCR compared to NHD controls and RHD
patients will have smaller SCR compared to NHD
controls. Also, LHD and NHD subjects will have greater
SCR during shock compared to no shock trials, whereas
SCR will not differ between shock and no shock trials
in RHD patients. During prize anticipation, however,
RHD patients will have greater SCR than NHD patients,
while the LHD patients will have smaller SCR than NHD
subjects. Similarly, RHD and NHD patients will have
greater SCR during prize compared to no prize trials,
whereas SCR will not differ between prize and no reward
trials in LHD patients.
3. During shock anticipation, the RHD subjects will have
smaller CEMG compared to NHD patients, while the LHD
group will have greater or equal corrugator EMG
compared to NHD patients. Compared to control trials,
LHD and NHD groups will show accentuated corrugator EMG

66
during shock trials, whereas RHD patients will exhibit
no differences.
4. During prize anticipation, the RHD will have greater or
equal ZEMG compared to the NHD group which will have
greater zygomatic EMG compared to LHD group. Relative
to no reward control trials, RHD and NHD subjects will
display increased zygomatic EMG during reward trials,
whereas LHD patients will show no differences.
Specific Predictions for Experiment 2: Subjective Report of
Emotion during Anticipatory Anxiety and Reward Tasks by RHD,
LHD, and NHD Patients
The hypotheses and predictions for this experiment are
similar in kind to those of Experiment 1.
Normal control group (NHD)
1. In line with previous research, it is expected that the
NHD group will report greater state anxiety during the
shock than no shock control trials.
2. Similarly, during prize anticipation, NHD group will
report more intense positive emotions than during the
no prize control trials
Focal lesion patients (RHD and LHD)
A) Global Right Hemisphere Emotion Model: The predictions
of this model are as follows:
1. During shock anticipation, the LHD and NHD groups will
report greater anxiety (based on state anxiety scores
on the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, dimensional

67
ratings of unpleasantness, arousal, powerlessness on
the Self Assessment Manikin, and the negative affect
factor score of the Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule) than the RHD group. The LHD and NHD groups
will report greater state anxiety during shock than no
shock control trials. The difference in reported
anxiety will be attenuated in RHD patients between
shock and no shock control trials.
2. During prize anticipation, the LHD and NHD subjects will
report greater positive emotions (based on dimensional
ratings of pleasantness, arousal, and dominance on the
Self Assessment Manikin, and the positive affect factor
score of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule)
compared to the RHD. LHD and NHD groups will report
more positive emotions during prize compared to no
reward trials. The difference in reported positive
emotions will be smaller during prize compared to no
reward trials in RHD patients.
B) Bivalent Emotion Model: Predictions based on the
bivalent view are:
1. During shock anticipation, the LHD subjects will report
greater or equal anxiety compared to the NHD patients,
whereas RHD subjects will report less anxiety than the
NHD group. More anxiety will be reported during shock
compared to no shock trials for LHD and NHD patients.

68
RHD will report no differences in anxiety between shock
and no shock trials.
2. During prize anticipation, the RHD will report more or
equal positive emotion compared to the NHD patients,
whereas LHD subjects will report less more positive
emotions than the NHD group. Also, RHD and NHD
subjects will report more positive emotion during prize
compared to no reward control trials. LHD patients
will report no differences in positive affect between
prize and no reward trials.

CHAPTER 3
METHODS
Subiects
A total of 48 right handed patients were included in
the study. Handedness was determined by Briggs and Nebes
(1975) abbreviated version of Annett's (1970) questionnaire.
The stroke patients were recruited through clinics,
laboratories, and medical records at Shands Teaching
Hospital at the University of Florida and the Veteran's
Administration Hospital in Gainesville. Additionally, other
subjects were recruited through neurologists, physical
therapists, and stroke clubs in the north central Florida
region. Control subjects were recruited through
laboratories at Shands Hospital and the VA, volunteer
services at the VA hospital, as well as from other local
senior groups.
All subjects were alert, cooperative, and oriented to
time, place, and person. The population consisted of four
groups; 12 patients with right hemisphere ischemic
infarctions (RHD), 12 patients with left hemisphere ischemic
infarctions (LHD), and 24 patients without neurologic
disease (12 were controls for the RHD group and 12 were
controls for the LHD group). Attempts were made to match
sex, age, and level of education across groups. There were
69

12 males in both the RHD and the RH NC groups. In the LHD
and LH NC groups there were 11 males and 1 female within
each group. Separate analyses of variance (ANOVA) were
used with group (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS) as the between
subject factor to determine if there were any group
differences in age and education. There was no significant
difference in the age of the subjects between each group.
The means and standard deviations for age of each group are
as follows: RHD=63.01(9.74), RH NCS=63.92(10.63),
LHD=66.75(7.59) , LH NCS = 68.67(7.35) .
There was also no significant differences between the
number of years of education for subjects between each
group. The means and standard deviations of years of
education for each group are as follows: RHD=13.08(3.97),
RH NCS=14.25(2.83), LHD=12.79(2.60), LH NCS=13.83(3.95).
The ANOVA tables for the analyses examining age and
education are presented below.
AGE
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG of
F
GROUP
238.729
3
79.576
. 996
.404
ERROR
3514.750
44
79.881
EDUCATION
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG of
F
GROUP
16.182
3
5.394
0.468
0.706
ERROR
507.563
44
11.536

71
Any patient with a pacemaker was excluded. All
subjects were questioned about hearing and visual defects.
All medications taken by the subjects on the day of the
psychophysiological measurements were recorded and a list of
these medications is provided in Table B-l, B-2, B-3, and B-
4 of Appendix B.
All subjects were administered the Zung Depression
Rating Scale. No group differences were found in their self
report of depression on the Zung [F(3,41) = 2.134, P =
.1107]. The mean scores and standard deviations on the Zung
are as follows: LHD (mean=38.636, sd=5.29); LH NCS
(mean=36.091, sd=5.28); RHD (mean=40.167, sd=7.814); RH NCS
(mean=34.091, sd=5.991).
The RHD and LHD subjects all had a CT or MRI performed
for clinical purposes. To be included, patients had a
discrete abnormal area compatible with cerebral infarction
on the head scan. Patients with tumors, hemorrhages,
trauma, or bilateral cerebral infarcts were excluded. All
subjects were tested at least 5 months post stroke in order
to control for possible changes in autonomic responsivity
over time. A t-test was conducted to examine group
differences in the amount of time since the last cortical
stroke. No differences were found between the groups
[T(l,22) = .588, P = .5626] . The average time in months for
the LHD group was 78, sd=72.72 and the average time in
months for the RHD group was 60.92, sd=69.59.

72
Using the atlas of Damasio and Damasio (1989), lesions
from the patients' CT scans were projected onto templates by
a board certified neurologist (K.H.), who was unaware of
patients' performance. Based on their scans, the
neurologist divided the stroke patients into anterior,
posterior, and mixed groups. Lesions were termed
"posterior" if located behind the central fissure or within
the posterior temporal lobe. Lesions located in front of
the central sulcus or involving the anterior temporal lobe
were considered "anterior." Lesions were considered
"primarily anterior" if they also involved the primary
sensory areas or Heschl's gyrus and "primarily posterior" if
they involved the primary motor areas. Lesions involving
both anterior and posterior regions, and/or regions between
them were considered "mixed."
All of the scans were then ranked from largest to
smallest lesion by the neurologist. The rankings were
analyzed using an independent samples Wilcoxon Test of
Ranked Sums to explore the group differences in size of
lesion. No significant differences was found between the
RHD and LHD groups [W = 141.0, P = 0.6075] .
A summary of the neurological information for each
subject is provided in separate tables for each group. See
Tables B-5 and B-6 in Appendix B.

73
Baseline Evaluation
The baseline evaluation included a review of
neurological records along with a neuropsychological and
psychophysiological screening. All patients' neurological
records were reviewed by a neurologist prior to acceptance
into the study. All patients psychophysiological responses
to a series of 60db tones was assessed. The
psychophysiological screening is described more fully in the
procedure section for experiment 1. The neuropsychological
screening is described below.
All patients were administered the Information and
Similarities subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale-Revised (WAIS-R), Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised
(Orientation, Digit Span, Logical Stories I,II and Visual
Reproductions I, II subtests), Benton Facial Recognition
Test, Western Aphasia Battery (Spontaneous Speech, Auditory
Comprehension, Repetition, and Naming subtests), Florida
Neglect Battery (shortened version including line bisection,
cancellation, visual extinction, tactile extinction, and
draw/copy a clock). The average performance on these
measures by group is presented in Table B-7. Individual
subjects' performance on these measures are presented in
Tables B-8, B-9, B-10, and B-ll in Appendix B.
T-tests were conducted to examine group differences in
neuropsychological functioning. Examination of the WAIS-R
subtests revealed that the LHD subjects had signicantly

74
lower scores on information compared with the CONS, but not
the RHD subjects. There were no significant group
differences on the similarities subtest of the WAIS-R. Both
the LHD and RHD subjects had significantly decreased digit
span forward and backwards compared to the CONs.
Results of memory testing revealed that the LHD
subjects scores on immediate recall on Logical Memory were
significantly lower than controls. However, after a delay,
the RHD subjects had significantly poorer recall compared to
the CONs. On both Logical Memory I and II, there were no
differences between the LHD and RHD subjects. RHD subjects
performed worse on Visual Reproductions I and II compared
with CONs, but not LHD subjects.
Language testing revealed that the LHD subjects had
more difficulty with comprehension and had a lower overall
Aphasia Quiotent compared with CONs and RHD subjects.
All Ss were also administered the Florida Affect
Battery. Their results on this test are provided in Tables
B-12, B-13, B-14, and B-15 in Appendix B.
Experiment 1: Psvchophvsiological Arousal and Facial EMG
during Anticipatory Anxiety and Anticipatory Reward in
Patients with RHD and LHD
This experiment consisted of two parts, an anticipatory
anxiety and an anticipatory reward task. In both, a two
stimulus paradigm was used whereby subjects were told that
one target tone would signal the occurrence of shock or
reward during the following 6 seconds, whereas a second

75
target tone indicated that nothing would occur during the 6
second interval. Autonomic measures of arousal (HR, SCR)
and facial EMG measures were obtained. The order of the
anticipatory anxiety task and the anticipatory reward tasks
was counterbalanced across subjects in each group.
Stimuli and Apparatus
The electrical stimuli was delivered by a Grass S88
Stimulator and Isolation Unit. A Zenith Data Systems AT
clone computer was programmed to deliver one high tone
(usually 800 or 1000 Hz) as a warning stimulus at 60 db for
one second. The computer also interacted with the
stimulator such that six seconds after presentation of a
specific tone, a shock was administered. The presentation
of a low tone (usually 400 or 600 HZ) was not followed by a
shock. For the reward task, the computer produced one high
and one low tone. Six seconds after the high tone, the
screen produced a message stating how many dollars or
lottery tickets the subject had won so far and a picture of
a smiling face. Six seconds after the low tone, nothing
occurred.
Stimulus presentation and data storage was controlled
by customized application software. Equipment for recording
heartbeat (HR), skin conductance rate (SCR), corrugator
electromyography (CEMG), and zygomatic electromyography
(ZEMG) included a set of Colbourn Instruments data

76
acquisition modules, a DT2805 Multifunction Board, and a
Zenith Data Systems AT clone computer.
Heartbeat was monitored by a Colbourn Instruments EKG
Coupler recorded from standard lead II. Colbourn
Instruments Bipolar comparator was used to detect the R-peak
of the EKG. Sampling occurred at 200 Hz. The output of the
Schmitt trigger was sampled at the digital input port of a
DT2805 Multifunction Board installed in a Zenith Data
Systems AT clone computer.
Skin conductance was measured by attaching 4-mm Ag/AgCl
electrodes to the thenar and hypothenar eminences of the
palm ipsilateral to the lesion. To control for possible
hand effects NHD subjects were divided into left hemisphere
normal control (LH NC) and right hemisphere normal control
(RH NC) groups. The LH NC group had electrodes placed on
their left hand and the RH NCs had electrodes placed on
their right hand. One LHD subject had skin conductance
measured on his right hand because his left arm had been
amputated. Since recent evidence (Tranel & Damasio, 1994)
suggests that brain damage subjects do not display
differential skin conductance between their right and left
hands, it was decided to include this subject in the SCR
analyses. A 0.05 m NaCl electrolyte (Johnson & Johnson K Y
Jelly) was used. Colbourn Instruments Skin Conductance
module S71-22 was used to condition the SC signal. This is
a constant voltage system which passes 0.5v across the palm

77
during the recording. Sampling occurred at 20 Hz. The
analog SC signal was then be digitized by the Multifunction
board, which physically resides in the backplane of the
Compaq computer. Software control was accomplished by
customized programs.
Corrugator and zygomatic EMG was recorded using 2-mm
Ag/AgCl electrodes placed unilaterally over the corrugator
and bilaterally over the zygomatic muscle regions after the
skin was cleansed with 70% EtOH. Zygomatic EMG was
collected bilaterally because motoneuron pathways which
innervate the lower face are largely contralateral (Rinn,
1984). On the other hand, corrugator EMG was collected
ipsilaterally because motorneurons innervating the upper
face muscles are for the most part, bilateral (Rinn, 1984).
Additionally, to control for possible laterality effects,
the LH NCs had electrodes placed over their left brow and
the RH NCs had electrodes placed over their left. Muscle
regions were designated using the placement specified by
Tassinary, Cacioppo, & Geen (1989) . Four Colbourn model
S75-01 High Gain Bioamplifiers with bandpass filters were
used to record the signals. Filter level was set at 90-1000
Hz and coupling at 10 Hz (Fridlund & Cacioppo, 1986) . Data
was integrated with Colbourn model S76-01 Contour Following
Integrator with a time constant set at 500 milliseconds.
Sampling rate was 20 Hz.

78
Procedure
At the beginning of each test session, there was
approximately a 5 minute adaption period during which the
recording electrodes had been applied and the subject
relaxed while sitting in a comfortable chair in a climate
controlled shielded room. Following this adaption period,
basic physiologic reactivity (HR, SCR) to a series of 24
tones, in 8 blocks of three with two tones at 400 Hz and one
at 100 Hz (each at 60 db for .5 seconds) was measured and
the course of orienting and habituation was assessed.
The anticipatory anxiety paradigm adopted from Reiman
et al. (1989) to induce negative emotion and reward portion
of the study to evoke positive emotion were given
independently and the order in which they were given was
counterbalanced by subject for each group. For both the
anticipatory anxiety and anticipatory reward, there was 40
trials: 20 control and 20 experimental shock or reward
trials. Each trial began with a meditation period of 2 to 3
seconds, where subjects repeated the number one silently to
themselves, followed by one of four tones (between 500 and
1500 Hz for 1 second at 60db). Physiological measurements
were recorded during the last second of each baseline period
through the six second interstimulus interval and through
the six second stimulus and recovery period.

79
Anticipatory shock task
Before beginning the anticipatory anxiety task, each
subject choose the intensity of shock. This was done by
increasing voltage from 0 volts in five volt increments.
Half second shocks were administered after each increase in
voltage until the subject found the shock intensity
"uncomfortable but not painful."
Before the onset of the session, subjects were told
which of two tones corresponded to shock trials and which
corresponded to control trials. This two-stimulus paradigm
is similar to that used by Vrana, et al. (1989) in which a
warning signal is followed six seconds later by an electric
shock. The subjects were instructed that during the shock
trials at tone offset (after hearing the high tone), there
will be a 6 second interstimulus interval which will be
followed by a shock. In addition, the subjects were told
that when they heard the low tone, it signaled that in six
seconds, nothing would happen.
Anticipatory reward task
At the beginning of the sessions, subjects were told
which tone would indicate that they would receive a dollar
(or lottery ticket) and which tone was not associated with
reward. The higher tone always designated reward. The
designated tone for the reward trials was followed by a six-
second interval after which a message appeared on the
computer screen. The message read "You have won -- dollars"

80
and a smiling face. The number on the message corresponded
to the total number of dollars and/or lottery tickets won.
As in the anticipatory anxiety task, the tone designating
the control trials, the low tone, was not followed by
anything.
For both the shock and reward tasks, a square appeared
on the screen, during the 6 second period between tone and
stimulus. A cross gradually enlarged within the square. By
the end of the six seconds, the cross would touch each side
of the square and the screen would go blank. Since it is
unclear how patients with cortical strokes estimate time,
the square and growing cross were used to control for time
estimation by helping all of the subjects keep tract of time
during the six second period.
During both the anticipatory shock and anticipatory
reward tasks, the procedure was interrupted after each block
of 10 trials. At that time, the experimenter entered the
room and administered to the subjects the three-item Self-
Assessment Manikin (SAM) (Hodes, Cook, & Lang, 1985) . The
SAM, which is described below, is designed as a self-report
measure of valence (pleasantness-unpleasantness), arousal,
and dominance (control).
The Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) measures subjective
ratings of three independent affective dimensions which have
been derived from factor analytic studies (Hodes, Cook, &
Lang, 1985). The three dimensions include valence (pleasant

81
to unpleasant), arousal (aroused to calm), and control
(dominance to submission). There are both computer and
paper and pencil versions of SAM. In this study, a paper
and pencil version of SAM in which each dimension was
presented as a series of five cartoon characters was be
used. For the valence dimension, SAM's facial expression
gradually changes from a smile to a frown. Arousal is
denoted by increased activity in the abdomen to no activity
and wide eyes to closed eyes. Control is represented from a
very large character who gradually shrinks in size to a very
small character.
During both the anticipatory shock and the anticipatory
reward tasks, subjects were asked to rate how they felt
using the SAM. This was done after each block of 10 trials,
so that two ratings were obtained after each of the
following conditions: shock anticipation, anticipation of
no shock, reward anticipation, anticipation of no reward.
Data Reduction
Heart rate
First raw data was examined. Based on the subjects
data as a whole, missing beats and double beats were
estimated and corrected. Next, a computer program was used
to more thoroughly determine missed beats and double beats.
Double beats were removed from the data set. The computer
used the surrounding beats to estimate the missing beats.
Average half second beats/minute were obtained for each

82
condition for four blocks, each containing five control
trials and five stimulus trials. An average baseline score
was derived for the high and low tones for each trial block.
Beats per minute change was then determined by subtracting
the baseline value from each half second beats/minute
average for each trial block. Those values were then used
to designate average Dl, A1, and D2 for each subject for the
stimuli and control blocks within each condition. Dl was
designated as the lowest point within the first 3 seconds.
The highest point following Dl was considered Al. D2 was
the lowest point following A1. If the last value in the six
second period was the Al, D2 and A1 were the same.
Skin conductance
A computer program calculated baseline, skin
conductance response (change from baseline), range-corrected
skin conductance response scores (minimum and maximum values
within each experimental condition was used in the
calculations), and half recovery time. Data was divided
into four blocks, each containing five control trials and
five stimulus trials. One average range-corrected SCR was
calculated for each stimuli and control block within each
condition. Additionally, range corrected SCR was also
recoded by changing all values under .02 micro ohms to zero.
An average recoded range corrected SCR was calculated for
each stimulus and control block within each condition.

83
Facial electromyography
A computer program calculated baseline corrugator
electromyography (CEMG), left zygomatic electromyography
(ZGL), and right zygomatic electromyography (ZGR) along with
average CEMG, ZGL, and ZGR over the six second period for
each block within each experimental condition. As a
consequence, for each trial block, there was one baseline
and one average score for each stimulus and control trial
for each of the three facial muscles regions: CEMG, ZGL,
ZGR. Difference scores for each of the variables was
obtained for each block by subtracting the average score
from the average baseline score for each subject.
Experiment 2: Subjective Report of Emotion During
Anticipatory Shock and Reward Tasks by RHP, LHP, and NHD
Patients
This experiment also consisted of two parts, an
anticipatory anxiety task and an anticipatory reward task.
Both were similar in kind to those of Experiment 1 except
that a 5 minute anticipatory interval was used in this study
in order to give the subjects time to complete verbal report
questionnaires about their affective state during
anticipation. In this experiment, the anticipatory shock
task and the anticipatory reward task were counterbalanced
by subject within each group.
Stimuli and Apparatus
The stimuli and apparatus used to dispense the shocks
were identical to used in Experiment 1. Additionally, two

84
verbal report measures of affective states were given.
These included the Self Assessment Manikin and the Positive
and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) (Watson, Clark, &
Tellegen, 1988). The SAM was described in the methods for
Experiment 1 above. The Positive and negative affect
schedule is comprised of two 10-item mood scales. Using
factor analysis positive affect (PA) and negative affect
(NA) factors have been identified. The directions used
were, "How are you feeling right now?" The experiment
inserted each item into the blank. Subjects were asked to
rate the intensity of each feeling on a scale of 1 to 5,
with 1 corresponding to "not at all" and 5 corresponding to
"extremely."
Procedure
This study consists of two parts, an anticipatory shock
task and an anticipatory reward tasks condition which were
counterbalanced, and described below.
Anticipatory shock task
This task had two parts, a shock and a no-shock
condition. In the shock condition, the subject waited five
minutes to receive a shock. Subjects were told that they
would receive a shock five minutes after hearing the warning
tone and that the strength of this shock was either the same
or greater than that previously given in Experiment 1. At
the end of the five minutes, subjects were given the same
intensity of shock they had previous received in Experiment

85
1. During the five minute anticipation period, negative
emotions were assessed using the Positive and Negative
Affect Schedule (PANAS) (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988),
and the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) (Hodes, Cook, & Lang,
1985). The experimenter read each item to the subjects and
recorded the responses.
In the no-shock task, subjects waited for a five minute
period with the understanding that they would not receive a
shock. The no-shock control condition consisted of a five
minute period during which time the subjects were
administered the PANAS and SAM.
Anticipatory reward task
The reward condition consisted of counterbalanced
reward and no-reward conditions. In the reward condition,
subjects waited to receive a reward. During the reward
condition, subjects were informed that they would receive
between 5 and 8 dollars, lottery tickets, or a combination
of both. Subjects were administered the PANAS and SAM while
waiting for the reward. In the no-reward condition,
subjects were informed that they were not receiving a
reward. The same questionnaires were administered during
the five minute no-reward condition.
Design Issues
A few problems inherent in the design of this project
are presented here. First, it is presumed that the positive
and negative emotions experienced in the anticipatory prize

86
and anticipatory shock situations will not be equal in
intensity even for the NHD group. Specifically, intensity
of anxiety/negative affect in anticipation of electric shock
will probably be greater than the intensity of joy/positive
affect in anticipation of a dollar or a lottery ticket.
However, due to financial constraints, it is not possible to
raise the financial value of the reward. Yet, by giving
each subject the choice between a dollar and a lottery
ticket, hopefully the intensity of the reward will be
maximized as each subject chooses the reward that is most
salient to him or her. In considering this problem, it may
be that autonomic, facial, and/or verbal responding are not
as pronounced as expected during the reward tasks. Yet, to
assume that differences in intensity of emotion contributed
to the lowered responsivity in the measured response
systems, attenuated responding would need to be evidenced in
all three subject groups.
Secondly, differences in baseline autonomic responding
may exist between the RHD patients, LHD patients, and normal
controls. This would make it difficult to separate deficits
in baseline autonomic responding, per se, from affective
autonomic responding. Consequently, baseline autonomic
responding will be examined in the psychophysiological
screening procedure.
Thirdly, it may be that the results of this study
provide partial support for both the global and bivalent

87
models of emotion. For example, autonomic arousal (SCR and
HR) may be mediated by the right hemisphere and hence RHD
patients would show diminished responding during both shock
and reward tasks. At the same time, facial activity, a more
accurate index of valence, may provide support for the
valence hypothesis such that RHD patients show reduced
corrugator muscle activity during negative emotions, but
accentuated zygomatic activity during positive emotion,
whereas LHD patients would show the reverse pattern. The
above is only one example of support for both the bivalent
and global models. There are other possible outcomes
indicating support for both models.

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
First, analyses of the heart rate and skin conductance
responding during the psychophysiological orienting
procedure are presented. Next, primary analyses for
Experiment 1 are presented for heart rate, skin conductance,
ipsilateral corrugator EMG, bilateral zygomatic EMG, and
verbal report ratings separately for the shock and reward
conditions. Third, the analyses of the verbal report data
from Experiment 2 are presented.
Following the analyses of group data, data from
anterior and posterior subgroups and individual cases are
examined.
Group Data
Psychophysiolcaical Screening
To review, the orienting, or physiological screening
procedure, consisted of an approximately 10 minutes period
where the subjects were instructed to sit quietly and listen
to tones. There were 8 block of three tones (24 tones
total). Two of every three tones were 1000 hz and one was
400 hz. Heart rate and skin conductances responding was
measured during the second before and six seconds following
presentation of each tone. One subject was removed from the
heart rate analyses due to unusually high and variable heart
88

89
rate. Additionally, one subject was removed from the skin
conductance analysis due to faulty electrode connections.
Heart rate
Average heart rate change from baseline was examined
using a Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with
group (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS) as the between subject
factor and tone (low, high) as the within subject factor.
The low tone was the novel tone. The main effect for group
[F(3,43) = .419, P = .740], tone [F(l,43) = 1.634, P =
.208], and the interaction between group and tone [F(3,43) =
.218, P = .884] were all nonsignificant. See Table C-l in
Appendix C.
A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
employed to examine D1 using group as the between subject
factor (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS) and tone (high, low) and
block (1 to 8) as the within subject factors. Results
revealed a main effect for tone [F(l,43) = 8.63, P < .01]
such that there was a greater D1 for the low tone (the novel
tone) compared to the high tone (the repeated tone). The
mean D1 for the low tone was -3.4 (sd=4.40) bpm change from
baseline whereas the mean D1 for the high tone was -2.5
(sd=3.82) bpm change from baseline. None of the other
effects were significant. See Table C-2, the full ANOVA
table, in Appendix C.

90
Skin conductance
The percentage of responses greater than .02 micro
sieman was analyzed using a repeated measures analysis of
variance with group (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS) as the
between subjects factor and tone (low and high) as the
within subject factor. One RHD subject was excluded due to
faulty electrode connections which resulted in corrupt data.
Results revealed that the main effect of group, tone, and
the group by tone interaction were not significant. The
mean percentage of responses and standard deviations for
each group were as follows: LHD, mean=8.07%, sd=25.73; LH
NCS, mean=25.52%, sd=36.16; RHD, mean=7.67%, sd=19.19; RH
NCS, mean=29.69%, sd=26.47. The full ANOVA table, Table C-
3, is presented in Appendix C.
The recoded range corrected skin conductance response
(SCR) was analyzed using a repeated measures analysis of
variance (ANOVA) with group (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS) as
the between-subject factor and tone (low, high) and block (1
to 8) as the within subject factors. As mentioned above,
one subject was excluded due to corrupt data. The main
effect for group [F(3,43) = 1.91, P =.1421], block [F(7,43)
= 1.20, P = .3017], and tone [F(l,43) = .21, P = .6495] were
not significant. The interactions between block and group
[F(21, 301) = .70, P = .8305], tone and group [F(3,43) =
.33, P = .80], and between block, tone, and group [F(21,301)
= .87, P = .6244] were also not significant. The full ANOVA

91
table, Table C-4 is presented in Appendix C. The means and
standard deviations for each group collapsed across tone and
block were: LHD mean=3.881, sd=13.690; LH NCS mean=14.691,
sd=27.809, RHD mean=3.895, sd=14.528; RH NCS mean=13.549,
sd=23.073.
To sum, during the psychophysiological screening
procedure, subjects had a greater heart rate D1 to the novel
tone. There were no differences between the tones in
overall heart rate, percentage of SCR responses, or amount
of skin conductance responding. Additionally, there were no
group differences found for either heart rate or skin
conductance.
Experiment 1
Experiment 1 consisted of two tasks (shock or reward).
During each condition, heart rate, skin conductance,
ipsilateral corrugator EMG, and bilateral zygomatic EMG were
recorded during a three second baseline, tone onset, and a
six second anticipation period. Within each task, the tone
onset signaled either a stimulus or control trial. High
tones always signaled stimulus trials (i.e., shock and
reward) and low tones always signaled control trials. There
were 40 trials within each task which were divided into four
10-trial blocks. Within each block there were 5 stimulus
and 5 control trials. Subjects were administered the Self
Assessment Manikin at the end of each 10-trial block.

92
Shock task
As mentioned above, subjects received the shock in the
forearm ipsilateral to their lesions. Additionally, RH NCS
and LH NCS received the shock on their right and left arms
respectively. Subjects were asked to determine the level of
shock that was "uncomfortable, but not painful." The level
of shock chosen by the subjects was examined using a 1
factor ANOVA with group (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS) as the
between subject factor. There were no group differences in
the voltage of shock chosen [F(3,44) = 1.79, P = .1622] .
The means and standard deviations for each group in volts
are as follows: LHD group (mean=68.75, sd=14.79), LH NCS
(mean=57.08, sd=12.70), RHD group (mean=64.17, sd=12.58), RH
NCS (mean=64.58, 9.40). The ANOVA table is presented below.
Table 4-1 ANOVA Table of Amount of Shock
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig
of F
Group
843.229
3
281.07
1.79
. 1622
Residual
6893.750
44
156.67
Heart rate. A series of separate analyses were
conducted to examine several heart rate variables. These
included overall heart rate change from baseline, D1 (the
greatest deceleration within the first 3-seconds after tone
offset), A1 (the greatest acceleration following D1 within
the 6-second period), and D2 (the greatest deceleration

93
following Al within the 6-second period). One subject was
excluded from the LK NC group due to unusually high and
variable heart rate. Figure C-l, C-2 and C-3 depict the
heart rate wave forms in half second intervals for the NCS,
RHD, and LHD subjects respectively.
Average heart rare change from baseline was examined
using repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) for
the shock condition with group as the between subjects
factor (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS) and condition (shock, no¬
shock) as the within subject factor. The analyses
revealed no group differences [F(3,43) = 1.55, P = .214] as
well as no differences between the shock and no-shock
conditions [F(l,43) = .050, P = .824] . The interaction of
group and condition was also not significant [F(3,43) =
.927, P = .436] . The means for each group were as follows:
LHD mean=-.558, sd=.985; LH NCS mean=-.130, sd=.650; RHD
mean=.139, sd=1.556; RH NCS mean=-.121, sd=1.01. The
complete ANOVA table is depicted in Table C-5 of Appendix C.
Heart rate D1 was examined using repeated measures
analyses of variance ANOVAS) with group (LHD, LH NCS, RHD,
RH NCS) as the between subject factor. The two within
subject factors were block (1 to 4) and condition (shock and
no-shock). Analysis of D1 revealed that there was a
significant three way interaction between group, condition,
and block [F(9,43) = 2.09, P < 05]. None of the other
interactions or main effects were significant. The full

94
ANOVA table, Table C-6, is presented in Appendix C. To
further explore the three way interaction, separate repeated
measures analyses of variance (ANOVAS) for each condition
with group as the between subject factor and block as the
within subject factor were conducted. For the shock
condition, the main effect for group, block, and the
interaction were all nonsignificant. Examination of the
no-shock condition, revealed that there was a main effect
for group [F(3,43) = 3.38, P < .05] and a block by group
interaction [F(9,129) = 7.77, P <.05] . The main effect for
tone by block was not significant. See Tables C-7 and C-8
in Appendix C.
Post-hoc analyses of the group effect were conducted
using independent t-tests with a Bonferroni correction.
Because there were no significant differences between the RH
NCS and the LH NCS [T(l,21) = 1.753, P = .0942], the control
subjects were combined into one group and compared to the
LHD and RHD subjects. Since three comparisons were made,
the p-value needed to be < .017 to reach significance. The
LHD group (mean=-2.30, sd=2.57) had a greater D1 compared to
the RHD group (mean=-1.15, sd=1.58) during the no-shock
condition [T (1,22) = -2.605, P < .0162] . There were no
significant differences between the LHD group and the CONs
or the RHD group and the CONs. The means and standard
deviations for the CONs are reported below: LH NCS (mean=-

1.13, sd=1.45), RH NCS (mean=-1.94, sd=2.20). A table of
the t-tests, Table C-9, is presented in Appendix C.
95
Post-hoc analyses of the group by block interaction
were performed. T-tests with Bonferroni corrections were
conducted to compare the groups separately for each block.
As mentioned above, the LH NCS and the RH NCS were combined.
Using the Bonferroni correction of p < .017 for
significance, no significant differences between groups were
revealed during blocks 1, 3, and 4. However, during block
2, the LHD subjects had a greater D1 [T(l,22) = -2.62, P
<.017], (mean=-3.42, sd=2.64) compared with the RHD subjects
(mean=-1.23, sd=1.16), but not the CONs [T(l,33) = -2.10, P
= .043] . Tables of the t-tests for each block, Table C-10,
C-ll, C-12, and C-13, are presented in Appendix C. The
means for each group for each block are presented below.
Table 4-2 Means and Standard Deviations of D1 during the
Control Trials of the Shock Condition
Block
One
Block
Two
Block
Three
Block
Four
LHD
-1.0583
(1.987)
-3.417
(2.638)
-3.050
(3.206)
-1.683
(1.716)
LH NCS
-1.718
( .745)
-1.063
(1.943)
- . 945
(1.662)
- .800
(1.202)
RHD
-1.483
(1.206)
- . 850
(1.141)
-1.875
(1.475)
-.4000
(2.072)
RH NCS
-2.342
(2.807)
-2.175
(2.406)
-1.025
(1.716)
-2.225
(1.644)
As with D1, a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted
using group as the between-subjects factor and block and

96
condition was within-subject factors. There were no
significant main effects or interactions. The overall means
for each group are as follows: (LHD mean=1.70, sd=3.70; LH
NCS mean=1.61, sd=2.88; RHD mean=2.02, sd=4.10; RH NCS
mean=l.90, sd=3.47). The ANOVA tables, Table C-14, is
presented in Appendix C.
The same type of repeated measures analyses with group
as the between subjects factor and condition and block as
the within subject factors was used to examine D2. Analysis
of D2 revealed that there were no significant main effects.
There was, however, a significant block by group interaction
[F(9,43) = 2.34, P < .05] . See Table C-15 in Appendix C
for details of the ANOVA table. The means for each group
for each block are presented below.
Table 4-3 Means and Standard Deviations for D2 during the
Shock Condition
Block
One
Block
Two
Block
Three
Block
Four
LHD
- . 779
(2.416)
-2.008
(3.1996)
- . 638
(2.962)
. 038
(2.172)
LH NCS
- . 977
(1.499)
- . 182
(1.362)
. 123
(1.479)
- . 114
(1.360)
RHD
. 075
(1.824)
. 179
(2.717)
- . 629
(1.190)
- . 833
(3.039)
RH NCS
- . 633
(3.429)
- . 650
(1.989)
- .446
(2.069)
- .465
(1.998)
To further examine the block by group interaction,
separate ANOVAs were performed for each block. Group was
the between subjects factor. There were no significant

97
differences between groups for block one [F(3,43) = .922, P
= .438], block three [F(3,43) = .705, P = .554], and block
four [F(3,43) = .945, P = .427] . However, a significant
difference was found between the groups at block two
[F(3,43) = 5.56, P < .01]. See the ANOVA tables in Appendix
C, Tables C-16, C-17, C-18, and C-19.
Further exploration of the group differences during
block 2, independent t-tests with a Bonferroni correction
revealed that the LHD patients has a significantly lower D2
than the CONS [T(1,33) = -3.26, P <. 01] and RHD [T(l,22) =
-3.27, P < .01 groups. The t-tests are presented in Table
C-20 in Appendix C.
To sum, overall HR did not differ between the shock and
control condition or between groups. Additionally, no
significant group, condition, or block differences were
revealed when examining A1. Examination of D1 revealed a
three way interaction, that upon further exploration yielded
no significant differences. One significant finding was
revealed in D2. Specifically, there was a significantly
greater D2 deceleration for the LHD group then the RHD group
and LH NCS during block 2 only.
Skin conductance. Skin conductance was examined by
exploring the percentage of responses (responses greater
than .02 micro sieman) and recoded range corrected skin
conductance response magnitude (responses that were greater
than .02 micro sieman were corrected based on individual

98
responses and responses less than .02 were recoded to 0).
One RHD subject was removed from the analyses due to corrupt
data (the experimenter was unable to get the electrodes to
remain firmly attached to the subject's palm).
Repeated measures analyses of variance were used with
group as the between subject factor and condition (shock,
no-shock) as the within subject factor. Block was not
included in these analyses because there were not enough
responses within each block. Results revealed a main effect
for group [F(3,43) = 3.13, P < .05], a main effect for
condition [F(l,43) = 29.52, P < .001], as well as an
interaction between condition and group [F(3,43) = 6.47, P <
.01]. See Table C-21 for the full ANOVA table in Appendix
C.
The main effect of group was explored using independent
t-tests with a Bonferroni correction. Since the difference
between the LH NCS and RH NCS was not significant, these
groups were combined. Three comparisons were conducted with
a Bonferroni correction of P < .017. Results indicated
that none of the groups were significantly different from
one another. There was a lower percentage of responses in
the RHD group (mean=13.18%, sd=17.15) compared to the CONS
(mean=35.00%, sd=29.00), however, this difference did not
reach significance [T(l,34) = 2.304, P = .0276]. The LHD
group (mean=15.83%, sd=25.09) did not have a significantly

99
lower percentage of responses compared to the CONS or RHD
groups. See Table C-22 in Appendix C.
The main effect for condition indicated that subjects
had a greater percentage of SCR responses during the shock
(mean=30.31%, sd=31.00) compared to the no-shock condition
(mean=19.79, sd=25.43).
The condition by group interaction was explored using
independent t-tests with Bonferroni corrections. Groups
were compared to one another for both the shock and no-shock
conditions. Since there were no significant differences
between the two control groups during both the shock
condition [T(l,22) = -1.375, P = .1830] and the no-shock
condition [T(l,22) = -1.236, P = .2296], the LH NCS and RH
NCS were combined into one group. There were three
comparisons for each tone, the bonferroni correction changed
the significance level to .05/3=.017. Examination of the
group difference during the shock condition revealed that
the RHD group (mean=15.00%, sd=16.88) had a lower number of
responses above .02 micro sieman compared to the CONS
(mean=44.17%, sd=33.27), [T(33) = 2.734, P <.017], The LHD
group (mean=16.25%, sd=23.94) also had fewer responses than
the CONS [T(22) = -2.582, P <.017). Additionally, no
significant group differences were found in percent of
responding during the no-shock trials. The results of the
t-tests are presented fully in Tables C-23 and C-24 in
Appendix C.

100
Due to the large amount of variance in the percentage
of responses between subjects, arcsin transformations were
used and the data was reanalyzed. Using the transformed
data, the main effect for group, main effect of tone, and
the interaction remained significant.
Repeated Measures Analyses of Variance were used to
analyze the recoded range corrected skin conductance
responses (SCR). As mentioned in the data reduction
section, the range corrected SCR was corrected by denoting
the largest response for each subject as 100%. Each of the
smaller responses for that subject was recoded as a
percentage of the largest response. The data was recoded by
changing all trials in which the actual SCR was less than
.02 micro sieman to 0%. The between subjects factor was
group (LH, LH NCS, RH, RH NCS) and the within subject
factors were condition (shock and no-shock) and block (1 to
4) .
Examination of the recoded range corrected skin
conductance responses (SCR) for the anticipatory shock task
revealed main effects for group [F(3,43) = 2.99, P < .05] ,
block [F(3,43) = 14.05, P < .001], and condition [F(l,43) =
23.36, P c.001] . There were also significant interactions
between condition and group [F(3,43) = 6.60, P < .001] and
block and condition [F(3,43) =3.83, P < .05]. The ANOVA
table, Table C-25, is presented Appendix C.

101
The main effect for group was explored using
independent sample t-tests with a Bonferroni correction.
Since the difference between the LH NCS and the RH NCS was
not significant [T(l,22) = -1.247, P = .2254], these group
were combined. Using the Bonferroni correction of P < .017,
as the significance level, the RHD group displayed
significantly smaller SCRs compared to the CONS [T(l,33) =
2.60, P < .017], but not the LHD group. The means and
standard deviations are as follows: RHD group (mean=5.08,
sd=8.93), LHD group (mean=8.12, sd=14.31), CONS (mean=14.30,
sd=11.14). A table of the t-tests, Table C-26, is presented
in Appendix C.
The main effect of tone revealed that the high tone was
associated with a significantly higher response (mean=13.98)
than the low tone (mean=7.16).
The main effect of block was explored using paired t-
tests with a Bonferroni correction based on six comparisons,
P < .008. The results revealed that the SCR was greater
during block 1 (mean=16.13, sd=17.39) compared to block 2
(mean=9.84, 13.96) [T(1,46) = 4.24, P < .001], block 3
(mean=8.08, sd=13.09) [T(l,46) = 4.57, P < .0001], and block
4 (mean=8.22, sd= 15.20) [T(l,46) = 4.30, P < .0001. Blocks
2 and 3, 2 and 4, and 3 and 4 were not significantly
different from one another. Table C-27 in Appendix C
contains the values from the t-tests.

102
The tone by block interaction was also examined using
paired -t-tests with a Bonferroni correction based on four
comparisons, requiring a P < .0125 for significance. The
SCR for the shock no-shock (mean=21.80, sd=19.89) was
significantly higher than the low tone (mean=10.46,
sd=12.24) for blocks 1 [T(l,46) = -4.655, P < .0001], and
block 4 (shock condition: mean=12.27, sd=19.02; no-shock
condition: mean=4.17, sd=8.48), [T(l,46) = -3.433, P <
.01], but not block 2 (shock condition: mean=12.21,
sd=16.89; no-shock condition: mean=7.46, sd=9.86), [T(l,46)
= -2.264, P = .0284] and block 3 (shock condition:
mean=9.63, sd=14.39; no-shock condition: mean=6.54,
sd=11.59), [T(l,46) = -1.449, P = .1542]. The t-tests are
presented in Table C-28 in Appendix C.
The condition by group interaction was explored using
t-tests with Bonferroni corrections separately for the shock
and no-shock conditions. Since there were not significant
differences between the LH NCS and the RH NCS during the no-
no-shock condition [T(22) = -.257, P = .7995] or the shock
condition [T(22) = -1.338, p = .1946], the two groups were
combined into one control group. Using the bonferroni
correction, the analyses had to reach a p-value of .05/3=
.017 to be considered significant. T-test tables are
provided in Appendix C, Tables C-29 and C-30. During the
shock anticipation, the RHD patients (mean=5.15, sd=8.55)
had significantly smaller responses then the CONS

103
(mean=20.52, sd=16.03), [T=(l,33) = 3.10, P < .017]. The
LHD group (mean=8.99, sd=13.13) was not significantly
different from any of the other groups. The difference
between the LHD group and the CONS approached significance
[T(l,34) = -2.152, P = .0386], suggesting that the LHD group
had less responding compared to the CONS during the shock
condition.
Examination of the means and standard deviations of the
SCR revealed large standard deviations compared to the
means. Thus, the overall ANOVA was conducted with log
transformed data. Using log transformation, the findings
remained the same as above.
Since past studies have found a significant positive
correlation between SCR and arousal ratings, the
correlations between range corrected skin conductance
magnitude and the arousal ratings during the shock condition
was obtained. The results revealed a trend towards
significance for the control subjects [R = .36, Beta = -
4.66, T( 1,22) = -1.80, P = .085] . The correlation between
SCR and arousal was not significant for the LHD group [R =
.11, Beta = 1.18, T(l,10) = .343, P = .7390] or the RHD
group [R = .287, Beta = -1.04, T = -.899, P = .3923].
In sum, subjects had a greater percentage of responses
in response to the shock tone than in response to the
control tone. Also, the results revealed that the RHD and
LHD subjects did not have significantly fewer responses than

104
the CONS. During the shock trials, however, the RHD and LHD
group had fewer responses than the CONS, whereas there were
no group differences during the no-shock trials. Subjects
demonstrated greater magnitude of responding during the
shock compared to the no shock condition. Also, there was a
significantly greater magnitude during block 1, than blocks
2, 3, and 4. Additionally, the shock tone produced
significantly greater magnitude of responding when compared
to the no-shock tone during blocks 1 and 4. Also, during
shock anticipation the RHD group had significantly smaller
responses than the CONS, whereas the LHD group did not
significantly differ from any of the other groups.
Facial electromyography (EMG). Ipsilateral corrugator
EMG (CEMG), left zygomatic EMG (ZGL), and right zygomatic
EMG (ZGR) were analyzed separately using change from
baseline as the dependent variables. Repeated measures
ANOVAs were employed. Group was the between subject factor
(LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS). Block (one to four) and
condition (high and low) were the within subject factors.
Results of the analyses revealed no significant main effects
or interactions for either CEMG or ZGR. The mean change
scores by group for each variable are presented in the Table
4-4 below. The ANOVA tables, Table C-31 and C-32 are
presented in Appendix C.

105
Table 4-4 Mean Change Scores and Standard Deviations for
Facial EMG during the Shock Condition
CEMG
ZGL
ZGR
LHD
.011 (.077)
-.009 (.111)
-.001 (.094)
LH NCS
.006 (.094)
.015 (.076)
-.005 (.107)
RHD
.031 (.175)
.010 (.115)
.013 (.100)
RH NCS
.008 (.102)
.023 (.097)
.013 (.107)
There was, however, an interaction between group and
block for zygomatic left [F(9,132) = 2.45, P < .01]. The
ANOVA table, Table C-33, is presented in Appendix C. The
group by block interaction was further explored by examining
block differences separately for each group. The was a
significant difference between the groups for block 1
[F(3,44) = 3.054, P < .05], but not block 2 [F(3,44) =
1.657, P = .1901], block 3 [F(3,44) = 1.543, P =.2167], or
block 4 [F(3,44) = 1.743, P = .1720]. The results for block
analyses are provided in Tables C-34, C-35, C-36, and C-37.
Further exploration of the main effect of group which
was significant in the analysis of block 1 was conducted
using independent t-tests with a Bonferroni correction.
Results of these analyses revealed that none of the groups
were significantly different from one another. These
results are depicted in Table C-38 of Appendix C. The means
and standard deviations are as follows: LHD patients (mean=-
.047, sd=.082) , LH NCS (mean=.013, sd=.042), RHNCS
(mean=.025, sd=.060), RHD (mean=.020, sd=.076).

106
Due to the large amount of variance found for CEMG,
ZGL, and ZGR, log transformations were conducted. The
findings were identical to the results obtained using the
raw data.
In sum, there were no significant effects between the
shock and control trials in ipsilateral corrugator EMG or
bilateral zygomatic EMG. There was a significant group by
block interaction for the left-sided zygomatic EMG variable.
Further exploration of this finding, however, revealed no
significant differences between the groups.
Self-assessment manikin. Since the self-report ratings
of valence, arousal, and dominance were determined using a
5-point SAM ratings, nonparametric statistics were used to
examine the differences by condition and by group. Wilcoxon
Tests for paired samples were used to analyze the
differences in ratings between the shock and no-shock
trials. Kruskal-Wallis Tests were used to analyze group
differences. The ratings at time 1 and time 2 were averaged
together for the analyses.
For all three variables, (i.e., valence, arousal, and
dominance) there was a significant difference in the ratings
for the shock and control trials. Within the shock
condition, subjects reported less pleasant feelings during
the shock compared to the shock-control trials [Z = -5.61, P
<.0001] (shock, mean=3.32, sd=1.29; shock-control,
mean=1.29, sd=.579). The main effect for arousal [Z = -

107
5.09, P <.0001] revealed that on average subjects reported
feeling more aroused during the shock compared to the shock-
control trials (shock, mean=3.30, sd=1.28; shock-control,
mean=4.65, sd=.754). There was also a main effect for
dominance [Z = -5.03, P < .001]. Examination of means
indicate that subjects reported feeling less in control
during the shock compared to the shock-control trials
(shock, mean=4.08, sd=1.18; shock-control, mean=4.67,
sd=.804).
The Kruskal-Wallis Tests revealed that there were no
group differences for ratings of valence, arousal, and
dominance for both the shock and control trials. These
results are presented in Table C-39 of Appendix C.
In sum, overall subjects reported that during shock
anticipation they experienced more unpleasantness, more
arousal, and less control than during the no-shock
anticipation. Additionally, the RHD, LHD, and NCS groups
did not differ in the intensity of their ratings in both the
shock and no-shock conditions.
Reward task
As mentioned above, subjects were given the choice of
receiving dollar bills, scratch-off Florida lottery tickets,
or a combination of both dollars and tickets in this task.
Subjects were instructed that each time they heard the
reward tone, they would receive 1 dollar or 1 ticket
(depending on what they chose). After each 10-trial block,

108
the experimenter brought the dollars or tickets into the
chamber and placed them on the table in front of the
subject. The subjects were instructed that at the end of
the task, they could take their money or tickets from the
table.
Heart rate. Overall heart rate was explored by
calculating average heart rate change from baseline and
employing a repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVA)
with group as the between subjects factor (LHD, LH NCS, RHD,
RH NCS) and condition (reward, no-reward) as the within
subject factor. Additionally, heart rate Dl, A1, and D2
were examined also using repeated measures ANOVAs. In these
analyses group was the between subject factor and block (1
to 4) and condition (reward and no-reward) were the within
subject factors. One subject from the LH NC group was
excluded for having unusually high and variable heart rate.
Figures C-4, C-5, and C-6, in Appendix C, depict the heart
rate change in beats per minute over half second intervals
for the NCS, RHD, and LHD groups respectively.
Results of the ANOVA for overall heart rate revealed no
significant main effects for groups [F(3,43) = .762, P =
.522] or condition [F(l,43) = .961, P = .332]. The
interaction was also not significant [F(3,43) = .425, P =
.736]. The ANOVA table, Table C-40, is presented in
Appendix C. The mean change from baseline in beats per
minutes for each group is as follows: LHD=-.675, sd=1.82; LH

109
NCS=-.178, sd=.747; RHD= -.467, sd=.853; RH NCS= -.370,
1.021.
As mentioned above Dl, A1, and D2 data were analyzed
separately using repeated measures ANOVAs with group as the
between subject factor and condition (reward, no-reward) and
block (1 to 4) as the within subject factors. There were no
significant main effects or interactions for any of the
three variables. ANOVA tables for these three variables are
in Appendix C, Tables C-41, C-42, and C-43. A table of
means for each of the three variables by group is presented
below.
Table 4-5 Means and Standard Deviations of Dl, A1, and D2
for the Reward Condition
Dl
Al
D2
LHD
-2
46
(3
56)
1
. 71
(3
. 82)
-1.05
(3
. 83)
LH NCS
-1
36
(1
75)
1
. 06
(2
.16)
- .32
(2 .
23)
RHD
-1
57
(2
24)
95
(2 .
52)
- . 69
(2 .
38)
RH NCS
-2
22
(2
90)
1
. 70
(3
. 87)
-1.27
(2
. 93)
To sum, overall heart rate along with Dl, Al, and D2
were not significantly different between the reward and
reward-control trials. Additionally, there were no group
differences in overall heart rate or Dl, Al, and D2.
Skin conductance. Similar to the shock task,
percentage of SCR responses and recoded range corrected SCR
were analyzed separately. Also, one RHD subject was
excluded from analyses due to corrupt data.

110
The percentage of responses where the response was
greater than .02 micro sieman was analyzed using a repeated
measures analyses of variance (ANOVA) with group (RHD, RH
NCS, LHD, LH NCS) as the between subject factor and tone
(high, low) was the within subject factor. There was no
main effect for group [F (3,43) = .478, P = .700] or for tone
[F(l,43) = .562, P = .457]. The interaction between group
and tone was also not significant [F(3,43) = 1.86, P =
.151]. The mean number of responses for each group (in
percentages) are as follows: LHD mean=15%, sd=23.45; LH NCS
mean=14.38%, sd=27.75; RHD mean=10.23%, sd=15.00; RH NCS
mean=20.63%, sd=15.13. See Table C-44 for the full ANOVA
table in Appendix C. Arcsin transformations were also
calculated and analyzed using the same design. The
transformed data also revealed no significant results.
A repeated measures ANOVA was used to analyze the SCR.
The between subjects factor was group (LH, LH NCS, RH, RH
NCS) and the within subject factors were tone (high and low)
and block (1 to 4). Examination of SCR revealed a main
effect for block [F(3,43) = 2.84, P < .05] along with a
block by condition interaction [F(3,43) = 3.32, P < .05].
The full ANOVA table, Table C-45, is presented in Appendix
C.
Paired t-tests with a Bonferroni correction requiring P
< .008 to reach significance were employed to explore the
main effect of block. None of the block were significantly

Ill
different from one another, however, the difference between
blocks 1 (mean=9. 66, sd=13.07) and block 2 (mean=5.84,
sd=ll.64) approached significance [T(l,46) = 2.727, P =
.009]. Block 3 (mean=6.17, sd=12.76) and Block 4
(mean=6.86, sd=14.82) were not significantly different from
each other or Blocks 1 and 2. A table of these t-tests,
Table C-46, is presented in Appendix C.
To examine the block by condition interaction, four
paired t-tests were used with a Bonferroni correction
requiring a P < .0125 to compare the reward and control
tones for each block. Results revealed that at block 1, SCR
was significantly greater [T(l,46) = 3.172, P < .01]
following the no-reward tone (mean=12.50, sd=14.28) than
following the reward tone (mean=6.82, sd=11.19). There were
no significant differences between the reward and no-reward
conditions for the remaining blocks (block 2: mean of no-
reward=5.32, sd=10.82; mean of reward=6.36, sd=12.50, block
3: mean of no-reward=5.16, sd=11.62; mean of reward=7.18,
sd=13.86, and block 4 mean of no-reward=6.79, sd=13.11; mean
of reward=6.93, sd=16.50). The results of the t-tests are
presented in Table C-47 in Appendix C.
The SCR magnitude was also examined using logarithmic
transformations. Using the same design, the results were
unchanged from the findings obtained using the
nontransformed data.

112
In sum, there were no differences in the percentages of
responses greater than .02 micro sieman for the reward
versus control trials or between groups. In general, there
were no significant differences in subjects responses during
block 1, 2, 3, and 4. Additionally, responses were greater,
however, after no-reward trials compared to the reward
trials during block 1. There were no differences in the
amount of responding between the reward and no-reward for
blocks 2, 3, and 4. There were also no group differences
detected in SCR magnitude.
Facial electromyography(EMG). Ipsilateral corrugator
EMG (CEMG), left zygomatic EMG (ZGL), and right zygomatic
EMG (ZGR) were analyzed separately. Repeated measures
analyses of variance were employed. Group was the between
subject factor (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS), while block (one
to four) and tone (high and low) were the within subject
factors. There were no significant differences found for
any of the facial muscle variables during reward condition.
A means table reporting means for each variable by group is
presented below. The three ANOVA tables, Tables C-48, C-49,
and C-50, are presented in Appendix C. There were no
significant main effects or interactions in the analyses of
CEMG, ZGL, and ZGR. The ANOVAs were also employed using
logarithmic transformations of the data. The transfomed
data did not change the results in any way.

113
Table 4-6 Means and Standard Deviations of the Change
Scores for Facial EMG during Reward Condition
CEMG
ZGL
ZGR
LHD
. 013
(.058)
-.034 (.093)
-.013 (.058)
LH NCS
. 032
(.066)
.025 (.103)
.016 (.082)
RHD
. 041
(.229)
.016 (.067)
-.015 (.123)
RH NCS
- . 023
(.107)
.038 (.127)
.006 (.056)
Self-assessment manikin. As with the shock condition,
the self-report of valence, arousal, and dominance were
analyzed using nonparametric statistics.
Within the reward condition, Wilcoxon Tests for paired
samples revealed that there was a significant difference
between the reward and control trials for valence [Z = -
5.31, P < .0001] which demonstrated that subjects reported
more pleasant feelings during the reward (mean=1.25,
sd=.562) compared to the reward-control (mean=2.90, sd=1.43)
trials. There was also a main effect of tone for arousal [Z
= -2.71, P < .01]. Subjects reported more arousal during
reward (mean=3.74, sd=1.32) compared to the reward-control
(mean=4.08, sd=1.08) trials. The main effect of tone for
dominance [Z = -2.52, P < .05] revealed that subjects
reported feeling more in control during the reward
(mean=4.55, sd=.916) compared to the reward-control
(mean=4.33, sd=1.07) trials.
Kruskal-Wallis Tests demonstrated that there were no
group differences for any of the variables during both the

114
reward and control trials. See Table C-51 in Appendix C for
details.
In sum, overall subjects reported greater pleasure,
arousal, and dominance during the reward compared to the
control trials. Additionally, none of the groups differed
in their ratings during the reward or control trials.
Shock versus reward
In order to directly compare the change in emotional
experience between the two stimulus and control conditions,
the no-shock and no-reward control conditions were
subtracted from their respective stimulus conditions. Thus,
a new variable was created for each variable by subtracting
the value during the shock condition from the value during
the no-shock condition. Similar variables were created by
subtracting the no-reward condition from the reward
condition. These new variables were created in order to
directly compare the change in each dependent variable
between the stimulus and control condition in the shock task
with the change between the stimulus and control condition
in the reward task.
Heart rate. As mentioned above, overall heart rate
along with Dl, A1, and D2 were examined separately. Also,
as in the heart rate analyses reported above, one subject
was excluded from the LH NC group due to unusually high and
variable heart rate change scores.

115
Direct comparison of the mean HR change during the
shock and reward conditions was also examined by employing a
repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVA) using group
(LH, LH NCS, RH, RH NCS) as the between subject factor and
condition (shock minus no-shock and reward minus no-reward)
as the within subject factor. There was no significant
difference within the two tasks [F(l,43) = .237, P = .629]
or between groups [F(3,43) = 1.060, P = .376]. The group by
task interaction was also not significant [F(3,43) = .400, P
=.754]. The mean bpm change from baseline for each group
are as follows: LHD mean=.032, sd=2.02; LH NCS mean=.343,
sd=.820; RHD mean=-.177, sd=2.012; RH NCS mean=.435,
sd=1.439). The ANOVA table, Table C-52, is presented in
Appendix C.
Heart rate Dl, A1, and D2 values for shock task were
compared to the values for reward task by subtracting the
control values from the stimulus values for each subject for
each trial block. These values were compared using a
repeated measures analysis of variance for each variable.
The between subject factor was group (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH
NCS) and the within subject factor was task (shock minus
shock-control and reward minus reward-control). There were
no significant differences between the shock and reward
conditions for any of the three variables. The ANOVA
tables, Table C-53, C-54, C-55, are presented in Appendix C.

116
The means for each variable by group are reported in the
table below.
Table 4-7 Group Means and Standard Deviations of D1, A1 and
D2 comparing Shock and Reward Conditions
D1
Al
D2
LHD
- . 129
(3.809)
.211
(4.466)
. 677
(4.415)
LH NCS
. 232
(2.005)
. 500
(2.628)
. 320
(2.553)
RHD
-.2997
(3.401)
- . 855
(4.654)
- .404
(3.684)
RH NCS
. 269
(3.451)
. 144
(4.649)
. 183
(4.061)
To sum, there were no differences between the shock and
reward tasks or group differences in overall heart rate.
Also, there were no differences between groups, blocks, or
tasks in heart rate DI, Al, and D2.
Skin conductance. The shock and reward tasks were
directly compared by calculating new variables by
subtracting the percentage of responses for control trials
from the percentage of responses for respective stimuli
trials (shock minus shock-control and reward minus reward-
control) . The shock and reward tasks were also directly
compared to examine differences in recoded range corrected
skin conductance responses (SCR). Again the no-shock and
no-reward control trials were subtracted from their
respective stimulus trials separately for each task and
block. Also, one subject from the RHD group was excluded
due to corrupt data.

117
Repeated measures analyses of variance were used to
analyze these new variables. Group was again the between
subject factor and task (shock minus shock-control and
reward minus reward-control). The full ANOVA table, Table
C-56, is presented in Appendix C.
The results revealed a main effect for group [F(3,43) =
6.534, P < .01 and task [F(l,43) = 16.499, P < .001]. The
interaction of group by task approached significance
[F(3,43) = 2.814, P = .0504].
Because the LH NCS and RH NCS were not significantly
different from one another [T(l,22) = -1.034, P = .3125],
these groups were combined. Exploration of the main effect
of group using independent t-tests with a Bonferroni
correction requiring a P < .017 for significance revealed
that the difference between the percentage of responses
between the control and stimulus trials was significantly
smaller for both the LHD group (mean=1.25, sd=5.49) [T(l,34)
= -2.86, P < .01] and the RHD group (mean=-.227, sd=3.25)
[T(l,33) = 3.28, P <.01] compared to the CONS (mean=10.83,
sd=10.88). There were no significant differences between
the two patient groups [T(l,21) = .776, P = .4465]. A table
of the t-tests, Table C-57, is presented in Appendix C.
The main effect of task revealed that subjects had a
greater difference between the percentage of responses
during the shock compared to shock-control trials

118
(mean=10.426, sd=15.102) than the reward compared to reward-
control trials (mean=1.170, sd=9.S57).
The interaction was explored using separate t-tests
with Bonferroni correction for the shock and reward tasks.
Since there were no significant differences between the LH
NCS and the RH NCS during the shock task or the reward task,
the groups were combined. Results revealed that during the
shock task the LHD group, (mean=.833, sd=7.334) had a
smaller difference between the percentage of responses for
the shock and control trials compared to the CONS
(mean=18.33, sd=16.73), [T(l,34) = -3.443, P < .01], but not
the RHD group (mean=3.636, sd=5.95), [T(l,21) = -1.000, P =
.3285]. The RHD group also had a significant smaller
difference in the percentage of responses greater than .02
micro sieman than CONS [T(l,33) = 32.814, P < .01]. There
were no significant differences between any of the groups
for the reward minus reward control variable. Tables of the
t-tests, Table C-58 and C-59, are presented in Appendix C.
A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
conducted to compare SCR magnitude between the two tasks.
Group (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS) was the between subjects
factor and task (shock minus no-shock and reward minus no¬
reward) and block (one to four) were the within subject
factors.
There was a main effect for group [F(3,43) = 4.42, P <
.01] along with a main effect for task (F(l,43) = 24.82, P <

119
.001]. There was also task by group interaction [F(3,43) =
4.81, P < .01] and a block by task interaction [F(3,43) =
6.81, P < .001]. The main effect for block, the interaction
of block by group, and the three way interaction were all
not significant. The results of the full ANOVA table are
presented in Appendix C, Table C-60.
The main effect by group was further explored using
independent t-tests with a Bonferroni correction. Since the
difference between the LH NCS and RH NCS was not significant
[T(l,22) = .509, P = .6159], these two groups were combined.
Using the significance level of P < .017, based on the
Bonferroni correction, the RHD group (mean=-.829, sd=2.61)
had smaller SCR magnitude compared to the CONS (mean=6.212,
sd=8.30), [T(l,33) = 2.733, P < .017]. There was no
difference between the LHD group (mean=.481, sd=3.40) and
the CONS or the LHD and the RHD. The results of the t-tests
are presented in Table C-61 in Appendix C.
The main effect by task revealed that the shock
condition produced significantly greater responding than the
reward condition when the respective control conditions were
held constant. The mean for the shock minus shock control
variable was 6.82 (sd=15.71) whereas the mean for the reward
minus reward control variable was -.62 (sd=13.06).
The block by task interaction was explored using paired
t-tests with a Bonferroni correction requiring P < .0125 for
significance. The results revealed that the SCR magnitude

120
during the shock task was significantly greater than the
reward task for block 1 [T(l,46) = 4.724, P < .0001] and 4
[T(1,46) = 2.925, P < .01], but not 2 [T(l,46) = 1.59, P =
.1195] and 3 [T(l,46) = .433, P = .6671]. A table of the
t-tests, Table C-62, is presented in Appendix C. A means
table is presented below.
Table 4-8 Means and Standard Deviations of Recoded Range-
Corrected SCR Comparing Shock and Reward Tasks by Block
Shock
Reward
Block One
11.35 (16.71)
-5.68 (12.28)
Block Two
4.75 (14.39)
1.04 (10.89)
Block Three
3.09 (14.62)
2.02 (11.57)
Block Four
8.10 (16.18)
.140 (15.91)
Independent t-tests with Bonferroni corrections were
used to examine the task by group effect. Separate t-tests
comparing groups were conducted for each task. Since there
were no significant differences between the LH NCS and the
RH NCS during shock task [T(l,22) = -1.209, P = .2393] or
reward task [T(l,22) = .082, P = .9355], the two groups were
combined. Examination of the shock condition revealed that
the LHD group (mean=1.735, sd=6.545) had a significantly
smaller difference between the shock and control trials
compared to the CONS (mean=12.43, sd=12.29), [T(l,34) = -
2.809, P < .01] . The RHD patients (mean=.127, sd=3.582)
also significantly smaller differences between the shock and
control trials when compared with the CONS, [T(l,33) =
3.234, P < .01]. The LHD and RHD groups did not differ from

121
one another [T(l,21) = .721, P = .4790] . There were no
significant differences between any of the groups for the
reward minus reward-control condition. Both tables of t-
tests, Table C-63, and C-64, are presented in Appendix C.
To sum, subjects had a greater percentage of responses
in anticipation of the shock compared to anticipation of
reward. Additionally, both RHD and LHD patients had fewer
responses than RH NCS, but not the LH NCS. Also,
examination of magnitude of SCR revealed that subjects had
greater magnitude of responding during the first and last
trial block compared to the middle trial blocks.
Additionally, both the LHD and RHD patients had
significantly smaller SCRs compared to their respective
controls during the shock task, whereas no group differences
were revealed during the reward task.
Facial electromyography. Analyses were also performed
to directly compared the shock and reward tasks. To do this
new variables were created by subtracting the control trials
from their respected stimulus trials for CEMG, ZGL, and ZGR.
Separate repeated measures analyses of variance using group
as the between subjects factor and task (shock minus no¬
shock and reward minus no-reward) as the within subject
variable. The analyses revealed no significant effects for
any of the three variables. The ANOVA tables, Tables C-65,
C-66, and C-67, are report i in Appendix C. The means for

122
each group for CEMG, ZGL, and ZGR are presented in Tables 4-
9, 4-10, and 4-11 below.
Table 4-9 Means and Standard Deviations of Corrugator EMG
Comparing the Shock and Reward Tasks
Shock
Reward
LHD
.004 (.108)
.004 (.138)
LH NCS
-.0061 (.084)
.015 (.104)
RHD
-.030 (.190)
-.072 (.565)
RH NCS
-.014 (.171)
-.031 (.163)
Table 4-10 Means and Standard Deviations of Left-Sided
Zygomatic EMG Comparing the Shock and Reward Tasks
Shock
Reward
LHD
.007 (.169)
.009 (.187)
LH NCS
-.013 (.084)
.028 (.106)
RHD
.009 (.184)
-.009 (.170)
RH NCS
.038 (.141)
.026 (.412)
Table 4-11 Means and Standard Deviations of Right-Sided
Zygomatic EMG Comparing the Shock and Reward Tasks
Shock
Reward
LHD
-.002 (.147)
-.019 (.147)
LH NCS
-.007 (.096)
.031 (.112)
RHD
-.006 (.156)
.003 (.110)
RH NCS
.048 (.159)
.005 (.193)
No main effects of group, block, or task or
interactions were revealed for the analyses of CEMG, ZGL,
and ZGR.
Self-assessment manikin. The SAM ratings for the shock
and reward conditions were directly compared by creating new

123
variables. The new variables were calculated by subtracting
the mean control rating from the mean stimulus rating within
each task. Each variable was analyzed using Wilcoxon Tests
for paired samples to explore differences in ratings by
condition and Kruskal-Wallis Tests to examine group
differences.
For all three variables there was a significant
difference between the shock and reward tasks. The mean
valence ratings [Z = -5.69, P < .0001] revealed that
subjects rated the shock and reward tasks significantly
differently. Examination of the means indicated that
subjects reported feeling less pleasant during the
shock than the control trials (mean=1.99, sd=1.30) and more
pleasant during the reward than compared to the reward
control trials (mean=-1.65, sd= 1.41).
Exploration of the means for the arousal ratings
revealed that subjects reported greater arousal during the
shock and reward conditions compared to their respective
control conditions (shock mean=-1.34, sd=1.25; reward mean=-
.344, sd=.923). The difference was significantly greater,
however, between the shock and shock-control compared to the
reward and reward-control [Z = -4.16, P < .0001].
The dominance ratings indicated that subjects reported
feeling less in control during the shock than the no-shock
trials (mean=-.583, sd=.947) and more in control during the

124
reward compared to no-reward trials (mean=.219, sd=.564), [Z
= -3.95, P < .001].
There were no group differences in the ratings of
valence, arousal, and dominance. See Table C-6 8 in Appendix
C for details.
Subjects reported experiencing less pleasantness, more
arousal, and less dominance during the shock compared to the
reward task. There were no group differences in these
ratings.
Medication effects
All medications that the subjects were taking at the
time of the experiment were recorded. Groups differed in
the amount of medications that affect the autonomic nervous
system, including alpha and beta adrenergic blocking agents,
calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, and digoxin.
Eleven of the RHD subjects were taking these medications, 9
of the LHD, 3 of the RH NCS and 4 of the LH NCS. Thus, the
significant skin conductance analyses were reanalyzed using
the presence of medications that affect the autonomic
nervous system as a covariate.
Shock condition. Within the shock task, repeated
measures analyses of covariance were conducted using
percentage of responses with group as the between subject
factor and condition (shock and no-shock) as the within
subject factors. Presence or absence of medication was used
as the covariate. When percentage of responses was examined

125
with the covariate, the main effect for group became
nonsignificant [F(l,42) =2.04, P = .123]. The condition by
group interaction, however, remained significant [F(3,43) =
6.47, P c.Ol]. The full ANCOVA table, Table C-69, is
presented in Appendix C.
Recoded range corrected SCR was also examined using
medication as a covariate. In this analysis, group was the
between subjects factor and block (1 to 4) and condition
(shock and no-shock) were the within subject factors.
Similar to the above analysis, using the covariate, the main
effect of group lost it's significance [F(3,42) = 1.57, P =
.212. Yet, again the condition by group interaction
remained significant [F(3,43) =6.60, P < .01]. This ANCOVA
table, Table C-70, is also presented in Appendix C.
In sum, when medications that affect the autonomic
nervous system (ANS) are used as a covariate, the group by
condition interactions for both percentage of SCR responses
and magnitude of SCR remains significant. As mentioned
above, further exploration of this interaction revealed that
the RHD and LHD groups had significantly fewer SCRs above
.02 micro sieman than the RH NCS during the shock trials.
Additionally, when the range corrected SCR values were
examined, the RHD group had significantly smaller magnitude
of responses than both controls groups, whereas the LHD
group did not differ from any other groups.

126
Shock versus reward tasks. Since the results of the
SCR data comparing the shock and reward conditions revealed
significant results, medications were also used as a
covariate in the analysis comparing the shock and reward
trials. A repeated measures analyses of covariance was
employed where group was the between subjects factor and
task (shock minus no-shock and reward minus no-reward) was
the within subject factor. When the percentage of responses
was examined, the main effect for group remained significant
[F(3,43) = 5.25, P < .01] . As in the ANOVA, the interaction
by group and task approached significance [F(3,43) = 2.81, P
= .050. The ANCOVA table, Table C-71, is presented in
Appendix C.
A similar analysis was employed using recoded range
corrected SCR as the dependent variable. In this analysis
group was the between subjects factor and block (1 to 4) and
task (shock minus no-shock reward minus no-reward) were the
within subject factors. Again, the main effect for group
remained significant [F(3,42) = 3.82, P <.05]. The
interaction between group and task also remained significant
[F(3,43) = 4.81, P < .01] . Table C-72, in Appendix C,
depicts the results of this analysis. Appendix C.
Summary of medication effects. In sum, these analyses
suggest that the presence of medications that affect the ANS
does not account for the significant main effect of group
for the percentage of SCR responses. As stated above,

127
exploration of this main effect revealed that the RHD and
LHD groups had a significantly smaller difference between
the stimulus and control trials compared to the RH NCS, but
not the LH NCS. As in the ANOVA, the interaction between
task and group approached significance.
The main effect of group and the group by task
interaction for the magnitude of SCR remained significant.
To review, the post-hoc analyses revealed that none of the
groups significantly differed from one another in change in
magnitude between the stimulus and control trials. The
interaction of task and group, however, revealed that the
LHD group had a significantly smaller difference between the
shock and no-shock condition in SCR magnitude compared to
the LH NCS. Also, the RHD group had a significantly smaller
SCR magnitude compared to the RH NCS and LH NCS. There were
no significant differences between the group when change in
SCR magnitude between the reward and no-reward condition was
examined.
Experiment 2
To review, Experiment 2 consisted of two conditions,
shock and reward. Within each condition, there were two
trials, stimulus and control. Each trial consisted of a
five minute anticipation period during which the subjects
were administered the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
and the Self Assessment Manikin. Subjects were instructed
that at the end of the shock trial, they would receive one

128
shock of the same or greater intensity than the previous
shocks. Additionally, subjects were instructed that at the
end of the reward trial they would receive between 5 and 8
dollars or lottery tickets, which ever they chose. Also,
they were informed that at the end of both 5 minute control
trials, nothing would happen.
Shock condition
Positive and negative affect schedule. Repeated
measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to explore
positive affect factor (PA) and negative affect factor (NA)
for both the shock and reward conditions. The between
subject factor was group (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS) and the
within subject factor was condition (shock, control). There
were no significant main effects or interaction for PA.
However, a significant main effect for condition was
revealed for NA [F(l,44) = 9.52, P < .01]. Specifically,
subjects reported higher intensities of negative emotions
during the shock (mean=12.42) compared to the shock-control
trial (mean=11.42). The main effect of group or interaction
between group and condition was not significant. These
two ANOVA tables, Table C-73 and C-74, are presented in
Appendix C.
Self-assessment manikin. Valence, arousal, and
dominance ratings were analyzed using Wilcoxon and Kruskal-
Wallis Tests. The shock and reward trials significantly
differed for valence [Z = -3.84, P < .001], arousal [Z = -

129
3.44, P < .001], and dominance [Z = -2.55, P < .05].
Specifically, subjects reported less pleasant feelings
during the shock trial (mean=2.60'' compared to the control
trial (mean=1.69), greater arousal during the shock
(mean=3.88) compared to the control (mean=4.58). They also
reported feeling less in control during the shock
(mean=4.29) compared to control trial (mean=4.75).
There were no group differences in the valence and
dominance ratings during both the shock and control trials.
There was however, a significant group difference in arousal
rating during the control trial, but not the shock trial.
The Kruskal-Wallis Tests are presented in Table C-75 in
Appendix C.
Mann-Whitney U Tests were used to examine the group
effects. Both the LHD group (mean=4.833, sd=.577), [Z=-2.12,
P < .05] and the RHD group (mean=4.92, sd=.289), [Z=-2.27, P
< .05] reported significantly less arousal during the
control condition compared to the LH NCS (mean=4.00,
sd=1.35). The LHD and RHD group ratings were not
significantly different from the RH NCS, (mean=4.58,
sd=.515). The Mann-Whitney U tests are presented in in
Table C-76 in Appendix C.
Summary of results of shock task. Subjects reported
more negative affect, less pleasantness, more arousal, and
less dominance during the shock compared to the no-shock
condition. There were no differences in ratings of the

130
positive affect factor of the PANAS. Additionally, there
were no group differences in reported in any variable, with
the exception of the arousal ratings during the control
condition. During the no-shock control condition the RHD
and LHD groups reported significantly less arousal than the
LH NCS, but not the RH NCS.
Reward condition
Positive and negative affect schedule. Repeated
measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to explore
positive affect factor (PA) and negative affect factor (NA)
for the reward conditions. The between subject factor was
group (LHD, LH NCS, RHD, RH NCS) and the within subject
factor was condition (reward, no-reward control). Results
revealed that there was a significant main effect of
condition for PA [F(l,44) = 7.52 P < .01]. The mean score
was 33.38 for the reward trial and 30.26 for the control
trial indicating that subjects reported more positive affect
during the reward compared to the reward-control trial.
Examination of means revealed no significant main effects or
interaction were found for NA. These two ANOVA tables,
Table C-77 and C-78, are presented in Appendix C.
Self-assessment manikin. Valence, arousal, and
dominance ratings were analyzed using Wilcoxon and Kruskal-
Wallis Tests. Examination of the verbal report ratings of
valence, arousal, and dominance during the reward and
reward-control trials revealed a main effect for trial for

131
valence only [Z = -2.47, P < .05] . Arousal ratings were not
significantly different between reward and control trials [Z
= -1.83, P = .067]. Also, dominance ratings were not
significantly different [Z = -1.15, P = .249] .
There were also no significant group differences. See
Table C-79 in Appendix C for details. Exploration of the
main effect of condition for valence revealed that subjects
reported feeling more pleasant during the reward (mean=1.23)
compared to the reward-control trial (mean=1.62). The trend
towards significance for arousal revealed that subjects
reported feeling less calm during the reward (mean=4.21,
sd=1.12) compared to the control (mean=4.53, sd=.997) trial.
Summary of results of reward task. In sum, subjects
reported more positive affect and more pleasantness during
the reward compared to the no-reward condition. There were
no differences in ratings of negative affect, arousal, or
dominance between the reward and no-reward conditions.
Additionally, there were no group differences in the ratings
of NA, PA, valence, arousal, or dominance.
Shock versus reward
Positive and negative affect schedule. The shock and
reward condition were directly compared by creating new
variables such that the control (no-shock and no-reward)
ratings were subtracted from the respective stimulus (shock
and reward) ratings. Repeated measures ANOVAs were
conducted using group as the between subjects factor and

132
task (shock minus shock-control and reward minus reward-
control) as the within subject factor. For both positive
[F(l,43) = 6.40, P < .05] and negative affect factors
[F(l,43) = 8.64, P < .01], there was a main effect of task.
The main effect of group and task by group interactions were
not significant for either PA or NA. The main effect of
task for PA, revealed that subjects reported more positive
affect during the reward compared to the no-reward condition
(mean=3.13, sd=7.97) than the shock compared to the no-shock
condition (mean=.298, sd=7.97). Examination of the mean
differences between stimulus and control conditions for NA
indicated that subjects reported more negative affect during
shock compared to the no-shock condition (mean=1.00,
sd=2.26) and slightly less negative affect during the reward
compared to the no-reward condition (mean=-.085, sd=1.19).
The ANOVA tables for both PA and NA, Table C-80 and C-81,
are presented in Appendix C.
Self-assessment manikin. The shock and reward
conditions were directly compared for each variable by
creating new variables (shock minus no-shock and reward
minus no-reward) for valence, arousal, and dominance.
Wilcoxon Tests and Kruskal-Wallis Tests were performed to
examine differences in condition and group respectively.
The ratings for the shock condition were significantly
different than the ratings for the reward condition for
valence [Z = -4.22, P < .0001], arousal [-2.19, P < .05],

133
and dominance [Z = -2.13, P < .05] . Specifically, the
ratings for the shock condition were more unpleasant than
the shock control condition (mean=.936, sd=1.42), whereas
the ratings for the reward trial were more pleasant than the
reward-control trial (mean=-.383, sd=.968). Subjects also
had higher ratings of arousal during shock compared to
shock-control (mean=-.745, sd=1.170) than reward compared to
reward control (mean=-.319, sd=1.218). Additionally,
subject reported feeling more out of control during the
shock compared to no-shock condition (mean=-.468, sd=1.14)
than during the reward compared to no-reward condition
(mean=-.085, sd=.503).
There were no group difference for valence, arousal,
and dominance. See Table C-82 in Appendix C for details.
Summary of results comparing shock and reward tasks.
Subjects reported a greater change between stimulus and
control conditions indicative of more negative affect and
less positive affect during shock task compared to reward
task. Additionally, during the shock task, subject reported
a greater change in valence, arousal, and dominance
indicating more unpleasantness, more arousal, and less
control compared to the difference between the reward and
no-reward conditions. There were no group differences in
ratings of PA, NA, valence, arousal, or dominance.

Subgroup Data
To better understand how specific lesion locations
134
affect skin conductance responding, attempts were made to
examine subgroups of the lesioned sample. Within the RHD
group, there were 2 subjects with primarily anterior
lesions, 3 subjects with posterior lesions, 5 subjects with
mixed lesions, 1 subject with corrupt SCR data, and 1
subject whose CT scan could not be obtained, but a report of
the scan stated that the patient had a temporal/parietal
infarct. In the LHD group, 1 subject had an anterior
lesion, 1 had a primarily anterior lesion, 6 had posterior
lesions, 1 had a primarily posterior lesion, 3 had mixed
lesions. Since dividing the groups into anterior,
posterior, and mixed groups created groups that were too
small for proper analysis, attempts were made to calculate
prediction intervals and to examine individual differences
in skin conductance responding. Unfortunately the
prediction intervals were too large and included non¬
responders .
Tranel and Damasio (1994) found that RHD patients with
attenuation or abolition of SCR when viewing emotional
pictures had damage involving the right supramarginal gyrus
and angular gyrus. Thus, subjects were divided into two new
groups; anterior and posterior. Subjects in the anterior
group had lesions that were previously considered anterior
or mixed (not including areas 39 and 40). Subjects in the

135
posterior group had lesions that had been classified as
posterior, primarily posterior, or mixed (including areas 39
and 40). Due to the small number of subjects within each
group, descriptive information, rather than statistic
analyses are presented. The descriptive information is
depicted in Table 4-12.
Table 4-12 Means and Standard Deviations for Anterior and
Posterior Groups during the Shock Task
Lesion
%SCR
SCR
Shock
No-
Shock
Shock
No-
Shock
LHD
Pos.
20.63
20.00
11.74
9.53
n=8
(27.83)
(32.07)
(17.91)
(14.49)
Ant.
7.50
6.25
3.49
2.71
n=4
(11.90)
(12.50)
(7.61)
(7.49)
RHD
Pos.
6.25
3.75
2.95
2.37
n=6
(12.50)
(9.75)
(8.24)
(5.76)
Ant.
19.17
15.00
5.84
6.12
n=5
(19.34)
(23.24)
(6.92)
(10.71)
Both
Pos .
15.83
14.58
8.81
7.14
n=14
(24.20)
(27.09)
(15.84)
(12.68)
Ant.
14.50
11.50
3.97
2.60
n=9
(17.07)
(19.30)
(6.99)
(7.05)
Percentage of Responses
LHD subjects with posterior lesions appeared to have a
greater number of SCR responses. The reverse trend was
observed in the RHD group such that patients with anterior
lesions had a greater percentage of SCRs compared to
patients with posterior lesions. Of note, relative to the
differences between the anterior versus poster-or groups

136
within both the LHD and RHD patients, the differences
between the shock and no-shock conditions are very small.
When subjects were divided into anterior versus posterior
lesions regardless of side of lesion, the percentage of
responses were almost identical.
SCR Magnitude
Similar to the trends observed for percentage of SCRs,
the magnitude of SCRs was greater in LHD patients with
anterior lesion compared to LHD patients with posterior
lesions. Again, the opposite trend was observed in the RHD
patients. Also, as noted in the examination of percentage
of SCRs, the relative to the anterior/posterior differences,
the differences between the shock and no-shock conditions is
quite small. When the anterior and posterior groups of RHD
and LHD patients were combined, the posterior group had a
greater magnitude of response.
The Effect of Neglect
To examine the effect of neglect on SCR magnitude
during the shock task, the SCRs of the right hemisphere
subjects with neglect and/or extinction (n=5) were compared
to the LHD and CONs. Similar to the overall findings, the
LHD [T(1,34) = -2.15, P <.05, (mean=8.99, sd=13.13)] and the
RHD subjects with neglect [T(l,27) = 2.07, P < .05, (5.32,
sd=5.45)] had significantly smaller SCRs during the shock
condition compared to the CONs (mean=20.52, sd=16.03). Also
consistent with the overall findings, there were no

137
significant differences between the RHD and LHD groups
[T(l,15) = .595, P = . 5609] .
The SCRs of the PHD subjects with clear neglect (n=3),
excluding the subjects with evidence of extinction only,
were compared to the LHD group and the CONs. In this
analysis, the RHD group was not significantly different from
the CONs [T(1,25) = 1.99, P = .0566], although the
difference approached significance. However, the mean for
the RHD group with neglect was extremely small (mean=1.667,
sd=2.887) compared to the overall mean of the RHD subjects
(mean=5.15, sd=4.56), suggesting that subjects with neglect
demonstrate a greater impairment in SCR responding in
anticipation of shock. As will be described below, two of
the three subjects with neglect were non-responders. Since
the number of subjects with neglect is quite small, however,
the above findings need to be interpreted with caution.
Individual Case Studies
To examine individual differences in SCR and the
dissociation between SCR and verbal report, each subjects
percentage of SCRs and magnitude of SCRs during the shock
and no-shock conditions, along with verbal report change
scores are presented in Table 4-13 and 4-14.
Non-Responders
Within the RHD group, 36% of the subjects (4/11) were
non-responders. Of the 4 non responders in the RHD group, 3
had lesions involving the supramarginal gyrus and angular

138
gyrus (areas 40 and 39, respectively). The fourth non¬
responder, Rll, did not have a lesion involving areas 39 and
40. Rll, however, reported only a small change (1 point
total on valence, arousal, and dominance) in emotional
experience during the shock compared to the control
condition. No clear pattern of neurological impairment was
apparent in the 4/12 (33%) of LHD subjects who were non¬
responders .
Percentage of SCRs
Of the RHD subjects who had responses, all but one,
R14, demonstrated a greater percentage of responses during
the shock compared to the no-shock condition. Although R14
did not demonstrate greater SCRs during shock compared to
the no-shock condition, he reported increased
unpleasantness, arousal, and loss of control during shock
compared to the no-shock control.
Within the LHD group, 5 subjects who were responders,
displayed a greater percentage of responses during the shock
compared to the no-shock conditions. One LHD subject had
the same percentage of responses during the shock compared
to no-shock trials and two subjects had a greater number of
responses during the no-shock compared to the shock trials.
All three of these subjects who did not display the expected
difference in the percentage of SCRs during shock compared
to the no-shock condition reported the expected changes in
emotional experience.

139
SCR Magnitude
Within the RHD group 2 subjects showed a clearly
greater SCR magnitude during the shock compared to the no¬
shock control (greater than 1% point). Three subjects
showed a small difference in the expected direction (less
than 1%) and one subject had greater responding during the
no-shock condition. Of the four subjects who did not
display greater SCR magnitude in the shock compared to the
shock control conditions, three subjects displayed the
expected change in verbal report and one did not.
In the LHD group, five of the subjects who were
responders demonstrated greater SCRs during the shock
compared to the no-shock conditions. Three subjects did not
have greater responding during the shock compared to the no¬
shock condition. One of these subjects, L12, also had a
relatively small change in verbal report ratings.
Verbal Report
Three of the RHD subjects had no or minimal change in
verbal report ratings (1 point or less between the shock and
control conditions for valence, arousal, and dominance
combined). Of those three subjects, 2 were non-responders.
One subject who had a minimal change in verbal report
ratings, displayed SCRs, but did not display a greater
percentage or magnitude of SCRs in the shock compared to the
no-shock conditions.

140
Within the LHD group, one subject had a minimal change
in rated emotional experience (1 point change in combined
valence, arousal, and dominance). This subject also was one
of the non-responders.
Subject L7
Examination of the LHD subjects revealed that one
individual, L7, had much greater percentage of SCRs and
higher SCR magnitude compared to the other LHD subjects. L7
was the youngest of the LHD group. L7 was also the subject
who had SCR measured on the right hand because his left arm
had been amputated. As mentioned above, it was decided to
include this subject in the analyses because recent evidence
suggests that there are no differences in bilateral SCR
measurements in brain damaged subjects (Tranel & Damasio,
1994) .
To examine the influence of L7 on the overall SCR
magnitude analyses, L7 was removed and the magnitude
analyses were conducted again. T-tests were used to explore
the tone by group interaction, using a Bonferroni correction
of p < .008. The results revealed that along with the RHD
group, the LHD group also had significantly smaller
responding than the LH NCS [T(l,21) = -3.43, P < .008] and
RH NCS [T(l,21) = -3.08, P < .008] during the shock
condition. As in the above analyses, there are no
significant group differences during the no-shock condition.
Thus, when L7 is removed from the analyses, the LHD group

along with the RHD group displays an impairment in SCR
magnitude during the shock condition.

Table 4-13 Comparison of SCR and Verbal Report in RHD Patients
AGE
Shk
%SCR
No-S
%SCR
Shk
SCR
No-S
SCR
Val
Aro
Dom
Lesion
R
1
73
0
0
0.00
0.00
3
. 5
1
Mixed
39,40
R
2
73
5
0
5.00
0.00
1
-2
- . 5
Mixed
R
3
74
0
0
0.00
0.00
0
- . 5
. 5
Pos .
R
4
64
20
5
5.53
5.00
2
-1
. 5
P.Ant.
R
6
25
15
11.80
9.46
3.5
-4
-1.5
•i
Pos .
R
7
76
15
5
7.23
5.00
4
0
. 5
Mixed
R
8
64
0
0
0.00
0.00
1
-2
-1.5
Pos .
R
1
1
57
0
0
0.00
0.00
0
-1
0
P.Ant.
R
1
2
48
25
20
9.81
9.07
2
- . 5
0
No
Scan
R
1
3
65
20
20
6.75
6.59
0
0
0
Mixed
39,40
R
1
4
49
55
60
10.54
20.14
3
-3
2
Mixed
39,40
Note: Shk=shock condition; No-S=No-shock condition; Val=valence;
Aro=arousal; Dom=dominance; (P.Ant)^primarily anterior; (Pos. ) ^posterior;
(39,40)=mixed involving areas 39 and 40

143
Table 4-14 Comparison of SCR and Verbal Report in LHD patients
AG
Shk
No-S
Shk
No-S
Val
Aro
Dom
Lesion
E
%SCR
%SCR
SCR
SCR
L
72
0
0
0.00
0.00
1.5
0
0
Pos .
2
L
76
10
5
8.23
1.90
2
0
-1
Pos.
3
-
L
67
25
15
13.99
18.42
4
-1
0
Pos .
4
L
60
0
0
0.00
0.00
1
0
0
Mixed
5
3 9,40
L
68
25
25
8.98
10.84
3
-2.5
-1
Mixed
6
L
50
85
95
47.85
33.72
2
-1.5
0
Pos .
7
L
72
25
15
10.95
2.92
1.5
-1
0
Pos .
8
L
60
0
0
0.00
0.00
3
-3
-3
Ant .
9
L
68
5
0
5.00
0.00
2
-2
-2
Pos .
1
0
L
76
0
0
0.00
0.00
3
-2.5
-1
P. Ant
1
1
L
70
15
30
7.84
19.24
2
0
0
P. Pos
1
2
L
62
5
0
5.00
0.00
3.5
-2
0
Mixed
1
3
Note: Shk=shock condition; No-S=No-shock condition; Val=valence;
Aro=arousal; Dom=dominance; (P.Ant)^primarily anterior; (Pos.)=posterior;
(39,40)=mixed involving areas 39 and 40

144
Table 4-15 SC" and Verbal Report in NC Subjects
Shk
%SCR
No-S
%SCR
Shk
SCR
No-S
SCR
Val
Aro
Dom
RC1
85
50
48.31
15.05
3.5
-3.5
-1.5
RC2
10
5
8.87
1.43
2
-1
-1
RC3
0
0
0.00
0.00
1.5
- . 5
0
RC4
45
40
9.97
14.89
3
-3.5
-3.5
RC5
95
55
42.17
16.63
1
1
0
RC6
100
40
61.58
9.13
4
-3.5
-3
RC7
45
40
16.56
7.66
3
-2.5
-1.5
RC8
95
80
49.11
27.22
0
-2
0
RC9
45
25
16.27
10.67
3.5
-2.5
- . 5
RC10
25
5
11.12
.50
3
0
-1
RC11
70
35
26.92
7.89
. 5
0
0
RC12
25
15
7.08
1.58
. 5
. 5
0
LC1
15
10
10.11
4.78
2.5
-2.5
0
LC2
100
100
39.62
30.42
4
-3.5
0
LC3
10
0
8.81
0.00
3.5
-2.5
-2
LC4
70
25
18.45
8.18
2
-2
- . 5
LC5
30
20
13.89
9.26
0
0
. 5
LC6
60
45
14.34
11.60
2
- . 5
0
LC7
50
5
23.02
1.32
0
0
0
LC8
5
0
10.95
2.92
3
-3.5
0
LC9
40
20
20.54
7.41
1
-1
0
LC10
25
0
20.50
0.00
- . 5
0
0
LC11
15
5
9.32
2.26
2.5
0
0
LC12
0
0
5.00
3.29
. 5
0
-1

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
In this study, emotional experience was measured in
individuals with unilateral cortical strokes and individuals
who were neurologically normal. Emotional experiences were
evoked by in vivo unpleasant and pleasant anticipatory
situations. Emotional responding was measured using verbal
report, autonomic responding, and facial muscle activity.
This study is unique for several reasons. First,
attempts were made to examine emotional experience in both
negative and positive emotional situations. In other
studies, when emotional experience has been examined in
stroke patients, only unpleasant emotionally-evoking stimuli
have been used. Using both pleasant and unpleasant
situations made it possibly to explore the differences in
predicted responding based on the global right hemisphere
model of emotions and the bivalent model of emotions.
Second, in most of the other studies of emotional
experience in stroke patients, emotions have been elicited
using stimuli that require^ perceptual interpretation (i.e.,
emotional slides). In this study, an in vivo elicitation of
emotion was used so that subjects did not have to make
perceptual interpretations in order to comprehend the
145

146
emotional content of the situation. Thus, the subjects'
abilities to comprehend the emotional context of these in
vivo situations is not confounded with the perceptual
problems that are common in patients with RHD.
Third, multiple response systems of emotion were
examined in the present study. Specifically, skin
conductance responding was used because it seems to be
sensitive to emotional arousal (Greenwald, et al., 1989).
Corrugator and Zygomatic EMG were examined because they have
found to be useful indicators of emotional valence
(Greenwald, et al., 1989). Additionally, heart rate was
examined because it has been found to be useful in the study
of anticipation (Lang et al., 1978). By using multiple
response systems, the presence of potential differential
breakdown, (i.e., dissociation between verbal report and
autonomic responding), could be examined following
hemispheric stroke.
Before discussing the manner by which hemispheric
strokes affected emotional experience in this study, the
data from the normal subjects is discussed. It is important
to present the data on the normal subjects first to insure
that the tasks produced data that fits with the current
knowledge base regarding the psychophysiology of emotion.
The summary of the findings based on the differential
responding in the normal subjects is presented below,

147
followed by a discussion of the results with the stroke
patients.
Differential Responding in Normal Subjects
Shock Condition
Heart rate
In the normal subjects, heart rate was expected to be
greater during the shock compared to the no-shock condition.
Additionally, a heart rate wave form, with an initial
deceleration, followed by an acceleration, and then a second
deceleration was expected during the shock condition. This
wave form was expected to be attenuated during the no-shock
control trials.
Heart rate did not differentiate the shock from the
control trials within the normal controls. There are
several possible explanations for the lack of significance
between the shock and control trials.
First, heart rate tends to differ depending on the
response-set of the subjects. For example, heart rate wave
forms have been found to be much more pronounced when
subjects are supposed to respond in some way at the end of
the anticipation period (Lang, Ohman, Simons, 1978). In a
recent study, when subjects were asked to react to a noxious
noise which followed a 6 second warning cue, they had
greater heart rate decelerations during the anticipation
period than subjects who were not asked to respond in any
way (Patrick & Berthot, 1995). This study, however,

148
differed from the present study in that subjects were not
given differential cues to predict whether the noxious
stimulus would occur or not.
Additionally, individual differences in heart rate
responding during fear conditioning have been observed
(Hare, 1972; Hodes, Cook, and Lang, 1985) . While most
individuals responded to fear anticipation with
predominantly heart rate acceleration, some individuals have
been found to respond to anticipation of a feared stimulus
with heart rate deceleration. As a consequence, it may be
that a larger sample size is needed for a significant heart
rate acceleration to be observed statistically.
Skin conductance
The predictions that SCR would be greater during shock
compared to the shock control trials were supported.
Consistent with previous literature, skin conductance
responses were greater during the threat of shock compared
to safe trials (Bankart & Elliot, 1974; Bowers, 1971a,
1971b). As expected, SCR also habituated during the shock
conditions, such that SCR during block 1 was significantly
greater than during blocks 2, 3, and 4.
Facial electromyography
Corrugator EMG was expected to be greater during shock
compared to the no-shock condition, whereas zygomatic EMG
was expected to show a either a decrease or smaller increase
during the shock compared to the no-shock trials. Other

149
studies have found that corrugator EMG is related to
unpleasant emotional experience and zygomatic EMG is related
to pleasant emotional experience (i.e., Greenwald, et al.,
1989) .
Ipsilateral corrugator and bilateral zygomatic EMG did
not differentiate the shock from control trials. There are
at least two possible factors that may have contributed to
the lack of the expected finding: the age of the subject
and the gender.
A recent study examining the relationship between age
in the general population on surface EMG of pericranial
muscles provides partial support for the decrease in EMG
with age. Jensen and Fuglsang-Fredriksen (1994) revealed
that EMG activity was significantly decreased in older
individuals during maximal voluntary contraction. These
authors suggest that the decrease in amplitude is related to
decrease in number of muscle fibers along with an increase
in age-related type II atrophy. However, in this study
when subjects were exposed to pain (blood being drawn) and
a cold-pressor test the increase in muscle activity was not
affected by age. This study differs from the present in
that different facial muscles were measured and that they
were measured under voluntary contraction and exposure to
pain. Moreover, the subjects in this study were divided
into four age groups. The oldest group ranged from 55-64
years of age. In the present study, the average age is in

150
the mid sixties and many of the subjects over 70 years of
age. It is possibly that age produces a greater decrease in
EMG amplitude in subjects over 65.
Additionally, sex differences may have played a role in
the lack of significant EMG findings. Females have been
found to generate facial EMG of greater amplitude during
affective imagery, show a stronger correlation between
ratings of emotional experience and facial EMG, and
demonstrate greater facial EMG during voluntary facial
expression as compared to males (Schwartz, Brown, & Ahern,
1980; Dimberg & Lundquist, 1990). Since all but two
subjects in this study were males, the facial EMG changes
may be attenuated compared to findings in a mixed gender or
female sample.
Verbal report
The differences in ratings of emotional experience
revealed that, as predicted, subjects reported more
unpleasantness, more arousal, and less control during the
shock compared with shock-control trials. While the
underlying emotional state of the subjects can not be
inferred with certainty from their ratings, the
appropriateness of the ratings illustrates that the subjects
were able to accurately perceive the expected emotional tone
of the situation when asked about the situation at a later
time.

151
Additionally, during the shock task of Experiment 2
subjects reported significantly more negative affect during
the shock compared to control trials, along with greater
unpleasantness, arousal, and loss of control. As in
Experiment 1, these rating support the predictions regarding
this task. There were no differences in the positive affect
ratings. These findings reflects subjects ability to
accurately perceive the emotional context during the
anticipatory period.
Reward Condition
Heart rate
Heart rate was predicted to produce a triphasic curve,
including an initial deceleration, followed by an
acceleration, and then a second deceleration during the
reward compared to the no-reward trials. No significant
differences, however, were found when the heart rate
variables were examined during the reward condition.
As mentioned above, heart rate varies as a function of
the response-set given to the subjects. This finding has
been clearly demonstrated in anticipation of high interest
slides (nude female) in a sample of undergraduate males.
Simons, Ohman and Lang's (1979) subjects were divided into
two groups. Each group was presented with two tones. One
tone signaled the presentation of high interest slides,
whereas the other tone signaled presentation of low interest
slides. One group was instructed to press a switch, as

152
quickly as possible, following the presentation of the tone
to insure that the slide would be presented for a full 5
seconds. The other group was told to just pay attention to
the tones and the slides. The subjects who were given a
response-set to react to had larger overall responses and
greater deceleration than the group that did not have to
react to the tone. Although the subjects were not asked to
rate their emotional experience, the high interest slides
are likely to be somewhat comparable to the anticipation of
reward in the present study. In both studies, subjects are
anticipating something with positive rather than negative or
neutral valence.
Skin conductance responding
Unexpectedly subjects had greater responding during the
reward-control trials compared to the reward trials. The
meaning of this finding is unclear. One possible
explanation is that subjects experienced the no-reward
trials as "frustrative nonreward." Fowles (1988) and Tranel
(1983) conceptualized the electrodermal system as an anxiety
system that is influenced by punishment or frustrative
nonreward. Since the subjects in this experiment are
expecting to obtain dollars or lottery tickets as part of
this task, the no-reward condition in the reward task may be
experienced by the subjects as a frustrative non-reward
situation. Specifically, perhaps the higher SCRs during the
no-reward trials is related to subject's feeling

153
disappointed relative to the reward trials. Verbal report
ratings illustrated that subjects felt less pleasant and
less in control during the no-reward compared to the reward
trials.
A second explanation for the lack of increased SCRs
during the reward compared to the no-reward trials is
related to the arousal level of the subjects. As mentioned
in the literature review, SCR is highly correlated with
arousal ratings (Greenwald, Cook, & Lang, 1989) . Also, as
mentioned in the design issues section of the literature
review, one of the concerns about the reward task was that
it was not as arousing as the shock task. Comparison of
arousal ratings between the shock and reward conditions
reveal that, in fact, subjects rated the shock condition as
more arousing than the reward condition. As a consequence,
it is possible that lack of increased SCRs during the reward
compared to the reward-control trials is the result of the
lack of arousal during the reward condition.
Moreover, Simons, Ohman, and Lang (1979) found that
subjects' SCR did not differ during anticipation of high
interest and low interest when subjects were not asked to
respond motorically. In this experiment subjects are not
asked to respond in any way following the anticipatory
period. Thus, the lack of SCRs during the reward compared
to the no-reward trials may be related to the lack of a
motoric response - set.

154
Facial electromyography
Similar to the shock condition, none of the facial
muscle sites, ipsilateral corrugator and bilateral
zygomatic, differentiated between the reward and control
trials. The possible reasons for the lack of findings
during the reward task are the same possibly explanations
for the lack of findings during the shock task; age and
gender. These reasons that age and gender possibly
contributed to the lack of significant results are discussed
above.
Verbal report ratinas
Subjects also reported more pleasantness, arousal, and
greater feelings of control during the reward anticipation
than the reward-control. Similar to the shock situation,
this illustrates that the subjects are able to perceive the
emotional tone of the situation accurately.
Additionally, in Experiment 2, subjects reported more
positive affect, and more pleasantness during the reward
compared to the control trials. There were no differences
in reported negative affect, arousal, and dominance. These
results reveal that subjects perceive the reward situation
as more positive and pleasant than the control trials.
The negative findings of the arousal and dominance
rating in Experiment 2 suggest that subjects were not as
emotionally aroused or as in control during the reward
condition in the second experiment compared the no-reward

155
control. These findings refute the predictions made about
the emotional content of Experiment 2. Perhaps, since the
subjects had already obtained a significant amount of
dollars or lottery tickets (20 dollars or ticket) in
Experiment 1, they were not as emotionally excited during
Experiment 2.
Another possible explanation could be related to the
conservative nonparametric statistics used for analyses.
The Wilcoxon Test is a conservative test when used with only
one rating, due to the large number of ties in subject
ratings.
Group Differences in Emotional Responding
As presented above, for the most part, heart rate and
facial EMG did not differentiate the shock and reward trials
from their respective controls. The only significant group
difference revealed in the heart rate analyses was that
during the shock condition that LHD group had significantly
greater decelerations during the control trials for block 2
of D2. These findings are of trivial theoretical
importance. The discussion below will focus on the SCR and
verbal report ratings.
During the shock condition, RHD subjects had smaller
SCR than their respective controls. This replicates
previous findings (Meadows & Kaplan, 1994; Zoccolotti et
al., 1982; Heilman, et al., 1978). This finding is
supportive of both the global and bivalent theory of

156
emotion. According to the global theory of emotion, RHD
subjects are expected to display impairment in emotional
processing of all types, whereas according to the bivalent
view, RHD patients display a deficit in processing emotional
content with a negative or unpleasant valence. Thus, the
overall finding that RHD patients in this study have
decreased responding during the shock condition is
supportive of both theories.
However, the RHD and LHD subjects did not differ
statistically from one another during the shock condition.
This finding is inconsistent with both the global and
bivalent views of emotion. Additionally, this finding is
also contradictory with previous literature (i.e., Heilman
et al., 1978). In previous studies, emotional slides (i.e.,
Zoccolitti et al., 1982; Meadows & Kaplan, 1994) and pain
(Heilman et al., 1978) have been used in the past to elcit
emotion. The present study differs in the use of an
anticipatory paradigm.
Some of the above studies have found that LHD patients
are hyperaroused and show increased SCR in response to
unpleasant emotional experience (Heilman, et al., 1978). In
this study LHD patients had SCRs that were smaller during
the shock condition, but not significantly different from
the control subjects. This replicates previous findings
(Morrow et al., 1981; Meadwos and Kaplan, 1994).

157
No group differences were found on the verbal report
ratings. It is interesting that although the RHD patients
do not have a normal SCR while anticipating an electric
shock, they nonetheless reported feeling the same intensity
of unpleasantness, arousal, and loss of control as the LHD
group and NCS. Meadows and Kaplan (1994) found similar
results when measuring SCR and verbal report in RHD and LHD
patient groups as they viewed emotional slides.
At this point, however, it is important to note that
one LHD subject, L7, had a larger magnitude of SCRs than the
other LHD subjects. When this subject is removed from the
analyses, the LHD subjects have significantly lower SCR
magnitude compared to NCs. This subject was unique in that
SCR was measured from his hand contralateral to his lesion
because his left arm had been amputated due to
thromophebitis, a type of disease that cause blood clots
within the peripheral veins. As mentioned above, recent
evidence suggests that SCRs are not significantly different
when measured on the left and rights hands of patients with
brain damage (Tranel and Damasio, 1994). At the same time,
it is important to restate that without inclusion of this
subject, similar to the RHD group, the LHD group has
significantly smaller SCR magnitudes compared to the NCs.
There are a few possible explanations for the decreased
number and magnitude of SCRs during the shock condition in
RHD and most LHD subjects. First, although the brain damage

158
subjects, along with the normal controls reported the
expected changes in verbal report of emotion, it can not be
assumed that subjects perceived the emotional situation
accurately. At the end of each 10-trial block, the
experiment asked the subjects to rate their experiences by
asking "When you heard the high tone, and you knew you were
going to get a shock, how did you feel on this scale..."
Using this method, it is unclear whether subjects reporting
their actual subjective experiences during the situation or
whether they were reported what they are "expected" to feel.
Moreover, since the subjects were not required to
respond in any way, it is unclear whether they were able to
distinguish each tone on a trial by trial basis. However,
all subjects were able to distinguish the pairs of tones
before the onset of the experimental trials. Since subjects
were not required to respond in any way to insure that they
interpreted each anticipatory trial accurately, it is
unclear whether the LHD and RHD subjects clearly understood
the emotional context of the shock condition and reward
conditions. As a consequence, the decrease SCRs in the RHD
group and in most of the subjects from the LHD group, may be
reflective of their inability to perceive the situation
accurately on a trial by trial basis.
A second possiblity is that brain damage, in general,
causes a decrease in SCR during expected emotional arousal.
This explanation is unlikely in light of the previous

159
research conducted with LHD and RHD subjects (i.e., Heilman,
et al., 1978; Meadows & Kaplan, 1994; Zoccolotti et al.,
1982). Additionally, recent evidence by Tranel and Damasio
(1994) suggests that certain regions of the brain within the
left and right hemisphere affect SCR whereas other regions
do not. There findings are discussed more fully below.
Global versus Bivalent Models of Emotion
Subjects displayed differential SCRs in the shock
compared to the no-shock conditions. RHD patients, however,
showed a paucity of responding when their SCR magnitude was
compared to the NCs. This finding is consistent with both
the global and bivalent theories of emotion. Both of these
theories predict that RHD will cause a deficit in emotional
processing of unpleasant or negative emotional states.
Valence effects during the reward condition were needed to
provide overall support for the global or bivalent models.
According to the global theory of emotion, RHD patient would
show deficiencies in the emotional experience of all
emotional states regardless of the valence of the emotion.
Thus, RHD patients should have demonstrated a deficit in SCR
during the reward as well as the shock condition. In
contrast, according to the bivalent view of emotions, the
RHD patients were expected to display normal processing of
positive emotional experiences, whereas the LHD were
expected to show deficiencies in processing of pleasant
experiences. Moreover, since SCR did not reliable

160
distinguish the reward from the reward-control trials, the
predictions about group differences based on the global and
bivalent models could not be examined.
Yet, when the one LHD subject with high SCRs is
removed, the LHD group, as well as the RHD group, appears to
be deficient in emotional responding during the shock
condition. This finding does not provide support for either
the global or the bivalent view of emotional responding.
The verbal report measures showed clear differences in
the ratings of subjects during the stimulus compared to the
control trials. For both the shock and reward conditions,
however, there were no group differences in ratings of
emotion. As a consequence, the verbal report data does not
support either the global or bivalent models of emotion.
In conclusion, there is a dissociation in RHD patients
and most of the LHD subjects between verbal report of
emotion and autonomic responding. The reason for this
dissociation is unclear. It may be that subjects were able
to perceive the emotional situations accurately, but have a
deficit in autonomic responding. Another explanation is
that the brain damaged subjects were unable to accurately
perceive the emotional content of the anticipation trials
accurately, and thus, did not exhibit the expected SCR
responses. Lastly, a combination of both possibilities may
have contributed to the dissociation between verbal report
and autonomic responding.

161
Neuroanatomic Correlates
It is important to examine these findings from the
neurobiological perspective. Below some of the current
evidence regarding the neural organization of emotion will
be reviewed. Based on this information, the current
findings will be discussed.
In a recent review of the neurobiology of emotional
conditioning, LeDoux (1994) described two pathways
responsible for shock conditioning, a cortical and
subcortical pathway. LeDoux describe recent work in animals
where tones are paired with shock. The tone comes through
the ear proceed from the auditory nerves to the auditory
midbrain to the auditory thalamus. The auditory thalamus
has projections to the primary auditory cortex as well as to
the amygdala. In animals, fear conditioning still occurs
after bilateral ablation of the primary auditory cortex.
According to LeDoux the cortical system is involved in
the slower, top-down interpretation of the emotional
significance of the situation. In this study, it remains
unclear whether the RHD and most of the LHD accurately
interpreted the situation correctly. The lack of SCR
findings may be related to the inability of subjects to
interpret the anticipatory trials accurately.
Heilman, Watson, and Valenstein (1994), reviewed the
literature on reaction time tasks in patients with
unilateral lesions which revealed that RHD patients had

162
slower reaction times regardless of the hand they used in a
task. They suggested that because patients with RHD have
reduced behavioral evidence of activation, that RHD mediates
the activation process. Specifically, these authors suggest
that the left hemisphere prepares the right extremities for
action, whereas the right hemisphere prepares both sides of
the body for responding. Thus, according to this theory,
the decreased autonomic responding in the RHD group can be
explained by their deficit in global physiological readiness
to respond. The decreased SCRs in most of the LHD group can
not be explained by this theory.
Tranel and Damasio (1994) examined 36 patients with
brain damage who had detailed neuroanatomic evaluations of
their lesions. They found two areas in patients with
unilateral brain damage which affect SCR to positive and
negative emotional slides. One area was the cingulate gyrus
in either the right and left hemisphere. The other area was
the supramarginal gyrus and angular gyrus on the right side
only. In the present study, when subjects were divided into
anterior and posterior lesions, right hemisphere patients
with posterior lesions had smaller SCRs during the shock
condition compared to RHD subjects with anterior lesions.
The opposite trend was found in the LHD group. These trends
are consistent with the findings of Tranel and Damasio
regarding the supramarginal and angular gyri on the right.
The differences in responding in patients with lesions

163
involving the cingulate gyrus could not be examined in the
present sample because few patients had lesions involving
that area.
Limitations of the Study
There are several limitations of the present study.
First, both normal and brain damaged subjects did not show
the normal orienting and habituation in the
psychophysiological screening. As a consequence, it can not
be said that the RHD patients in this study have a specific
deficit in electrodermal arousal, as measured by SCR.
Tranel and Damasio found that some stroke patients have
deficits in orienting and emotional arousal, whereas others
have deficits in emotional arousal alone. Other
researchers, however, have found patients with RH strokes
show normal orienting, but abnormal emotional arousal
(Meadows and Kaplan, 1994). The orienting procedure used
by Meadows and Kaplan differed from the present study in
that they used much louder tone (100 db), whereas the
present authors used tones of 60 db. This difference in the
intensity of the tones may account for the discrepancy
between the current findings and those revealed by Meadows
and Kaplan.
Second, none of the psychophysiological measures
accurately distinguish the reward from the control
situation. Because this suggests that the reward condition
was problematic, the global and bivalent models could not be

164
distinguished using this procedure. Several reasons could
account for this problem. As mentioned above, the reward
situation is not as emotionally arousing as the shock
condition. Since SCR is found to be highly correlated with
arousal rating (Greenwald, Cook, and Lang, 1989), the lack
of SCR in the reward condition may be related to the lack of
arousal experienced by the subjects in this condition.
Additionally, facial EMG which have been correlated with
ratings of valence, does not appear to be a useful measure
in this population.
Third, since subjects were not asked to respond in any
way during the anticipatory period, it is unclear whether
subjects were accurately interpreting the emotional context
of the anticipation period on a trial by trial basis.
Although subjects demonstrated competence at distinguishing
the high and low pairs of tones from one another before the
onset of the experiment, some subjects may have difficulty
distinguishing certain tones or remembering the significance
of the tones during the experimental procedure. As a
consequence, the lack of SCR findings in the RHD group and
most of the subjects in the LHD group could possibly be
reflective of problems accurately interpreting the
significance of the anticipatory period.
Lastly, attempts were made to map each subject's scans
onto Damasio's templates. However, this study was not
designed to be able to carefully determine the

165
neuroanatomical areas involved in each lesion. As a
consequence, the results of the individual case studies
needs to be interpreted with caution.
Future Directions
Attempts need to be made to find more accurate ways to
measure pleasant emotional valence. For example, by using
younger, female subjects facial EMG may become a useful
instrument. There are few young female stroke patients.
Perhaps studies using facial EMG would provide more useful
results if conducted with different patient populations,
i.e., patients with temporal lobectomies.
Another possible way to measure facial expressiveness
may be to use a facial coding such as a facial coding system
like FACS or the system of digitizing light changes in
pixels. FACS has been used successfully in the past as a
method to explore facial expressiveness in patients with
unilateral brain damage (Mammacuri, et al., 1988;
Caltagirone, et al., 1989).
Additionally, perhaps the level of arousal during a
reward condition could be raised by providing subjects with
immediate money/lottery tickets or possibly increasing the
monetary value awarded to the subjects.
Most importantly, if an anticipatory paradigm is used
in the future, it will be important to have subjects respond
in some way during the anticipation period to insure that
they are interpreting each trial accurately. One caveat to

166
having subjects respond in some way is that their
physiological responding, especially heart rate, will be
influenced by the motor response.
In sum, in the present study attempts were made to
measure multiple emotional response systems by using in vivo
emotional experiences in patient with left and right
cortical strokes. This study is unique in that pleasant and
unpleasant experiences were examined separately, multiple
response systems of emotion were measures, and that in vivo
rather than perceptual stimuli were used to evoke emotions.
The findings revealed that in normal subjects, skin
conductance and verbal report differentiated the shock from
the no-shock task. In the reward task, only verbal report
clearly differentiated the stimulus from control conditions.
Within the shock condition, both RHD and most LHD
demonstrated decreased skin conductance responding relative
to the normal controls, but had no differences in verbal
report. These findings could be reflective of actual
deficits in electrodermal arousal or inability to clearly
understand the top-down nature of the anticipatory task.

APPENDIX A
PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASURES
Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM)
The Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) measures subjective
ratings of three independent affective dimensions which have
been derived from factor analytic studies (Hodes, Cook, &
Lang, 1985). The three dimensions include valence (pleasant
to unpleasant), arousal (aroused to calm), and control
(dominance to submission). There are both computer and
paper and pencil versions of SAM. For purposes of this
study, a paper and pencil version of SAM in which each
dimension is presented as a series of nine cartoon
characters will be used. For the valence dimension, SAMs
facial expression gradually changes from a smile to a frown.
Arousal is denoted by increased activity in the abdomen to
no activity and wide eyes to closed eyes. Control is
represented from a very large character who gradually
shrinks in size to a very small character.
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) is
comprised of two 10-item mood scales. Using factor analysis
positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) factors were
identified. Principle components analysis was employed to
167

168
choose the specific descriptors for the schedule.
Preliminary analyses revealed that 10 terms were sufficient
for each scale. Undergraduate subjects were asked to
complete the schedule, reporting their affect for moment,
today, past few days, past few weeks, year, and in general.
Internal consistency and intercorrelations range from .86 to
.90 for PA and .84 to .87 for NA. As expected the
correlation between PA and NA is low, ranging from -.12 to -
.23. Test-retest reliability after 1 week were .47 to .68
for PA and .39 to .71 for NA. Correlations with Hopkins
Symptom Checklist, Beck Depression Inventory, and State -
Trait Anxiety Scale (state anxiety) is .51 to .74 for NA and
-.19 to .36 for PA.

APPENDIX 3
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Table B-l Medications taken by RHD Group
Group
Medications
R1
Digoxin*, Zantac, Nitrobid, Inderal*,
Quinine Sulfate, Procardia*
R2
Aspirin, Vitamin B, Docusate, Nifedipine*
R3
Pepcide, Glyburide, Lopressor*, Nalfom
R4
Isosorbate, Atavan*
R6
Dilantin, Aspirin, Lopressor*, Zestril*,
Isosorbide, Mevacore
R7
Tegretol, Aspirin, Hydrchlorothizide,
Lisinopril*, Glyburide
R8
Lisinopril*, Isordil, B-12, Aspirin
R9
Aspirin, Fosinopril*, Propoxyphene,
Quindirine Glucomate, Albuterol Oral
Rll
None
R12
Lopid, Vasotec*, Coumadin, Micronase,
Chlorzoxazone, Verapamil*, Triazolan,
Alprazolan*
R13
Isodil, Aspirin, Lopressor*
R14
Vasotec*, Lopressor*
* affects the autonomic nervous system
169

170
Table B-2 Medications taken by the RH NCS
Group
Medications
RC1
Hydrochlorothiazide
RC2
None
RC3
None
RC4
Corgard*, Hytrin*, Diazide
RC5
Tagamet
RC6
Vasotec*
RC7
None
RC8
Clinoril
RC9
Ibprophen, Metiprolol*, Nifedipine*,
RC10
None
RC11
None
RC12
Sudafed
* affects the autonomic nervous system

Table B-3 Medications taken by the LHD Group
Group
Medications
L2
Aspirin, Loniten, Cardura*
L3
Thyroid, Triamcinalone acetonide
inhaler, Albuterace, Postassium
Chloride, Furosimide, Lisinopril*,
Glyburide
L4
None
L5
Aspirin
L6
Digoxin*, Aspirin
L7
Tagemet, Coumadin
L8
Coumadin, Quinidine, Digoxin*, Vasotec*
L9
Atenolol*, Coumadin
LI 0
Verapamil*, Prednizone, Darvon
LI 1
Capozide*
L12
Coumadin, Arthritis medication
L13
Aspirin, Lopressor*

172
Table B-4 Medications taken by LH NCS
Group
Medications
LC1
Glyburide, Metorolol*, Nifidipine*,
Monoxidil, Furolcemide, Liscinopril*,
Docusate, Cimetidine
LC2
None
LC3
None
LC4
Meclizene, Aspirin
LC5
Arthritis medication
LC6
Aspirin, Loped, Zestril*, Glucontrol
LC7
Micronase, Allopurinol, Aspirin
LC8
Aspirin, Digoxin*, Zocor
LC9
Lopressor*, Aspirin, Lasix
LC10
Voltarian, Calcium, Aspirin
LC11
Mevcor, Zynthryroid
LC12
None
* affects the autonomic nervous system

Table B-5 Neurological Information for the RHD Group
SEX
AGE
YEARS
OF
EDUC.
BRODMANN'S AREAS INVOLVED
IN CVA
LESION
LOCATION
MONTHS
SINCE
CVA
R1
M
73
18
3 9, 22, 21, 20, 40, 3,2,1,
6, 4, 46, 9, 11, 47, 45,
44
Mixed
216
R2
M
73
14
6, 7, 40(mixed), 8, SPWM,
STWM
Mixed
192
R3
M
74
13
22, 37, 39, 40(mixed),
STWM
Posterior
12
R4
M
64
12
3,1,2, 6, 44
Primarily
Anterior
14
R6
M
54
8
3,1,2, 19, 21(posterior),
22(posterior), 37, 39,
40(mixed), Medial
temporal, SPWM
Posterior
46
R7
M
76
10
4, 6, corona radiata
Mixed
43
R8
M
64
8
3,1,2, 7, 19, 22, 39, 40,
41, 42, insular cortex,
medial temporal, STWM
Posterior
62
R9
M
60
8
3,1,2, 6, 9, 10, 24, 25,
32, 44, 45, 46, striatum,
internal capsule, corona
radiata
Primarily
Anterior
8
Rll
M
57
13
3,1,2, 6, 22 (anterior) ,
41, 42, insular cortex,
striatum
Primarily
Anterior
51
R12
M
48
12
Film not available
18
R13
M
65
15
21(mixed), 22(mixed), 37,
38, 44, 45, 40(anterior),
striatum, corona radiata
Mixed
15
•
R14
M
49
22
3,1,2, 6, 21 (anterior) ,
40(anterior), 41, 42,
insular cortex, internal
capsule, striatum, STWM
Mixed
54

Table B-6 Neurological Information for the LHD Group
SEX
AGE
YEARS
OF
EDUC.
BRODMANN'S AREAS INVOLVED
IN CVA
LESION
LOCATION
MONTHS
SINCE
CVA
L2
M
72
14
22(posterior),
40(anterior), Insular
cortex
Posterior
155
L3
M
76
13
4, 7, 19, 21(posterior),
22(posterior), 37, 39,
40(posterior), 41, 42,
insular cortex, SPWM,
STWM, medial temporal
Posterior
178
L4
M
67
12
3,1,2, 22(posterior), 41,
42, 39, insular cortex,
STWM
Posterior
50
L5
M
60
14
3,1,2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11,
12, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,
32, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,
42, 45, 46, SCWM,
thalamus, striatum,
medial temporal, insular
cortex
Mixed
236
L6
M
68
15
21, 22(mixed), insular
cortex
Mixed
58
L7
M
50
15
22(posterior), 37, 40
(mixed)
Posterior
62
L8
M
72
12
22(posterior), 39,
40(mixed), STWM
Posterior
33
L9
M
60
14
6, 8, 24, corona radiata
Anterior
5
L10
M
68
8
17, 18, 19, 31, medial
temporal
Posterior
7
Lll
F
76
8
312, 6, 41, 42, 44, 45,
insular cortex, striatum,
internal capsule
Primarily
Anterior
*26
L12
M
70
12
3,1,2, 19, 22(posterior),
39, 40(mixed), insular
cortex, striatum, medial
temporal
Primarily
Posterior
51
L13
M
62
16
3,1,2, 6, striatum,
internal capsule, STWM,
insular cortex
Mixed
75

175
Table B-7 Means and Standard Deviations on Neuropsychological
Testing by Group
Tests
LHD
LH NCS
RHD
RH NCS
WAIS-R,
7.25
10.58
9.50
11.00
Information
(3.33)
(3.94)
(3.00)
(3.28)
WAIS-R,
7.00
9.42
7.83
8.83
Similarities
(3.16)
(2.94)
(3.01)
(2.95)
Digit Span,
5.25
6.25
5.83
8.83
Forward
(1.66)
( .62)
(1.12)
(2.95)
Digit Span,
3.17
4.33
3.83
5.17
Backwards
(1.47)
(1.07)
(1.27)
(1.27)
WMS-R
13.45
13.92
13.08
13.92
Orientation
( .82)
( .29)
(1.65)
( .29)
WMS-R, Logical
41.92
65.58
49.08
63.00
Memory I
(34.26)
(27.44)
(32.42)
(27.09)
WMS-R, Logical
46.75
67.25
36.83
65.75
Memory II
(32.44)
(28.44)
(27.66)
(27.01)
WMS-R, Visual
61.33
77.25
42.67
76.67
Reproduction I
(31.29)
(24.31)
(33.65)
(30.42)
WMS-R, Visual
52.08
76.17
35.00
71.17
Reproduction II
(30.14)
(25.91)
(35.72)
(36.36)
WAB,
9.22
9.73
9.73
9.85
Comprehension
( . 74)
( .39)
( .39)
( .21)
WAB, Aphasia
92.00
98.67
97.87
98.34
Quiotent
(8.17)
(1.07)
(2.18)
(1.31)
Note: WAIS-R scores are presented as standard scores, digit
span scores are presented as # of digits, WMS-R orientation
scores are reported as raw score with a high score of 14, WMS-
R Logical Memory and Visual Reproduction scores are presented
as percentiles based on age-related norms, WAB comprehension
is the # correct out of 10, WAB aphasia quoitent is the #
correct out of 100.

Table B-8 Results of Neuropsychological Testing for RHD Patients
r- ■ — ----- ... ... seas .... ..... .... — — ■ ■■ = a 1 ¡ —
ID
WAIS-R
INFO
WAIS-R
SIM
DIGIT
SPAN
WMS-R
Orient
WMS-R LOG
MEM I & II
WMS-R VIS
REPRO I & II
NEGLECT
FACIAL
RECOGN
APHASIA
SCORE
R1
SS = 12
SS = 11
4/4
13
88/42
34/26
No
SEVERE
10/99.4
R2
SS = 11
SS = 5
7/5
13
21/18
8/10
Neg, Ext
SEVERE
9.7/96.2
R3
SS = 10
SS = 5
5/5
14
5/4
34/10
Neg, Ext
SEVERE
9.65/96.7
R4
SS = 16
SS = 11
6/4
14
53/53
54/73
No
BORDERLINE
10/100
R6
SS = 10
SS = 9
4/2
12
29/19
15/23
Ext
BORDERLINE
10/95.8
R7
SS = 5
SS=4
7/2
11
74/46
20/6
No
WNL
9.1/93.4
R8
SS = 10
SS = 7
5/4
14
11/15
19/11
Neg, Ext
SEVERE
9.95/98.9
R9
SS = 8
SS = 7
6/2
11
80/64
2/1
Neg, Ext
SEVERE
8.85/95.9
Rll
SS = 6
SS = 6
7/4
14
90/92
95/59
No
WNL
10/100
R12
SS = 6
SS-9
6/4
13
9/10
50/10
?Neg, Ext
SEVERE
10/99.4
R13
SS = 10
SS = 6
7/4
14
*72/65
83/92
No
BORDERLINE
10/100
R14
SS = 10
SS=14
6/6
14
57/14
98/99
No
WNL
9.55/98.7
176

Table B-9 Results of Neuropsychological Testing for RH NC Group
ID
WAIS-R
INFO
WAIS-R
SIM
DIGIT
SPAN
WMS-R
Orient
WMS-R LOG
MEM I & II
WMS-R VIS
REPRO I & II
NEGLECT
FACIAL
RECOGN
APHASIA
SCORE
RC1
SS = 9
SS = 6
6/4
14
80/78
98/98
No
WNL
10/98
RC2
SS = 15
SS = 16
8/7
14
94/97
99/99
No
WNL
10/99.8
RC3
SS = 11
SS = 9
5/5
14
12/26
99/99
No
WNL
9.9/97.6
RC4
SS = 15
SS = 11
7/5
14
76/42
98/98
No
WNL
10/99.6
RC5
SS = 8
SS = 8
6/3
14
72/81
89/93
No
WNL
9.6/99.2
RC6
SS = 13
SS = 8
8/7
14
68/72
54/66
No
WNL
10/98.6
RC7
SS = 10
SS = 5
8/5
14
27/48
9/7
No
MODERATE
9.35/95.7
RC8
SS = 12
SS = 8
7/5
14
90/98
98/96
No
WNL
10/98.4
RC9
SS = 15
SS = 12
7/7
14
83/97
77/77
No
WNL
10/99.6
RC10
SS = 6
SS = 7
7/5
13
76/76
33/13
No
WNL
9.7/96.2
RC11
SS = 6
SS = 8
6/4
14
49/51
68/88
No
WNL
9.75/98.3
RC12
SS = 12
SS = 8
7/5
14
29/23
32/20
No
WNL
9.85/99.1

Table 3-10 Results of Neuropsychological Testing for LHD Group
WAIS-R
INFO
WAIS-R
SIM
DIGIT
SPAN
WMS-R
Orient
WMS-R LOG
MEM I 5c II
WMS-R VIS
REPRO I & II
NEGLECT
FACIAL
RECOGN
APHASIA
SCORE
L2
SS = 10
SS = 7
8/6
12
98/97
72/68
No
SEVERE
9.5/98
L3
SS = 7
SS = 7
3/0
14
6/8
60/46
Ext
WNL
8.2/86
L4
SS = 6
SS = 6
4/3
14
54/40
76/21
No
WNL
9.3/88.8
L5
SS = 1
SS = 2
4/3
NA
2/5
66/
Ext
MODERATE
7.65/69.5
L6
SS = 7
SS = 10
5/4
14
52/47
98/93
No
WNL
9.4/96.6
L7
SS = 12
SS = 13
7/4
14
59/85
88/80
No
WNL
10/100
L8
SS = 10
SS = 9
5/2
14
6/26
76/90
No
WNL
8.7/89.2
L9
SS = 12
SS = 10
8/4
14
98/92
66/46
No
WNL
9.5/94.2
LI 0
SS = 4
SS = 3
6/3
13
11/15
2/1
No
WNL
8.8/94.8
LI 1
SS = 4
SS = 4
5/3
13
17/26
2/8
No
MODERATE
9.95/95.5
L12
SS = 7
SS = 7
4/2
12
60/56
42/64
No
WNL
9.65/95.5
L13
SS = 7
SS = 6
4/4
14
40/64
88/42
No
WNL
9.95/95.9

Table B-11 Results of Neuropsychological Testing for LH NC Group
ID
WAIS-R
INFO
WAIS-R
SIM
DIGIT
SPAN
WMS-R
Orient
WMS-R LOG
MEM I & II
WMS-R VIS
REPRO I & II
NEGLECT
FACIAL
RECOGN
APHASIA
SCORE
LC1
SS = 6
SS = 5
5/3
14
67/68
68/59
No
WNL
LC2
SS = 7
SS = 8
6/4
14
94/97
83/82
No
WNL
10/99.4
LC3
SS = 13
SS = 12
6/4
13
57/81
94/99
No
BORDERLINE
10/100
LC4
SS = 6
SS = 6
7/3
14
21/36
94/84
No
WNL
9.8/97.8
LC5
SS = 13
SS = 15
6/4
14
40/18
64/64
No
WNL
9.95/98.1
LC6
SS = 14
SS = 8
7/4
14
23/32
52/94
No
WNL
10/97.6
LC7
SS = 14
SS = 9
6/5
14
89/87
99/99
No
WNL
10/100
LC8
SS = 14
SS = 7
6/6
14
78/76
99/98
No
WNL
9.85/98.5
LC9
SS = 13
SS = 13
6/3
14
98/98
99/98
No
WNL
9.85/98.9
LC10
SS = 15
SS = 11
6/5
14
98/98
99/67
No
WNL
10/100
LC11
SS = 7
SS = 10
7/6
14
68/76
42/58
No
WNL
9.85/96.9
LC12
SS = 5
SS = 9
7/5
14
54/40
34/12
No
WNL
10/98.2

180
Table B-12 Performance of RHD on Florida Affect Battery (percent
correct)
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8a
8b
9
R1
75
65
85
90
50
50
85
60
50/
13
40
R2
50
65
80
80
75
88
80
75
75/
31
65
R3
85
65
55
90
60
75
65
40
94/
25
20
R4
90
80
90
100
80
75
95
75
100
/63
80
R6
80
90
75
95
65
100
95
90
75/
69
80
R7
85
70
75
75
50
44
90
25
50/
44
55
R8
75
80
65
80
60
100
100
75
81/
50
60
R9
55
60
60
75
55
50
70
70
88/
13
45
Rll
95
65
100
95
80
88
95
85
100
/44
85
R12
90
80
90
90
75
100
95
75
75/
69
90
R13
75
50
75
95
70
69
70
55
100
/ 60
70
R14
100
85
90
100
85
100
85
100
81/
75
100

181
Table B-12 Performance of RHD on Florida Affect Battery (percent
correct)
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8a
8b
9
R1
75
65
85
90
50
50
85
60
50/
13
40
R2
50
65
80
80
75
88
80
75
75/
31
65
R3
85
65
55
90
60
75
65
40
94/
25
20
R4
90
80
90
100
80
75
95
75
100
/63
80
R6
80
90
75
95
65
100
95
90
75/
69
80
R7
85
70
75
75
50
44
90
25
50/
44
55
R8
75
80
65
80
60
100
100
75
81/
50
60
R9
55
60
60
75
55
50
70
70
88/
13
45
Rll
95
65
100
95
80
88
95
85
100
/44
85
R12
90
80
90
90
75
100
95
75
75/
69
90
R13
75
50
75
95
70
69
70
55
100
/ 60
70
R14
100
85
90
100
85
100
85
100
81/
75
100

182
Table B-13 Performance of RH NCS on Florida Affect Battery
(percent correct by subtest)
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8a
8b
9
RC1
100
95
85
95
95
100
90
85
94/
50
65
RC2
100
85
90
100
95
94
100
100
88/
81
100
RC3
90
90
75
95
85
88
90
75
75/
69
75
RC4
95
85
100
100
95
100
100
100
100
/6 9
100
RC5
100
90
70
95
85
100
100
95
94/
63
90
RC6
95
75
75
100
85
100
100
90
94/
75
95
RC7
100
75
75
85
55
75
95
65
88/
50
60
RC8
100
90
95
95
90
100
100
85
94/
69
95
RC9
90
85
85
100
95
100
100
100
81/
75
90
RC10
100
80
65
100
85
94
90
55
88/
44
60
RC11
95
80
90
100
80
100
100
95
88/
69
90
RC12
100
65
80
90
95
100
100
95
81/
81
80

183
Table B-14 Performance of LHD on Florida Affect Battery (percent
correct by subtest)
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8a
8b
9
L2
100
95
90
95
90
100
100
85
81/
63
80
L3
90
85
95
85
95
69
90
70
94/
63
65
L4
100
70
35
100
80
94
100
80
75/
63
80
L5
90
85
95
100
100
94
50
75
63/
44
75
L6
100
90
95
100
90
100
100
90
94/
75
95
L7
100
80
90
95
95
100
100
80
81/
75
90
L8
100
75
90
100
75
100
100
75
81/
56
90
L9
95
85
90
100
80
100
100
10
0
87/
75
85
L10
90
75
85
90
70
69
95
60
81/
13
65
Lll
70
60
70
90
55
88
95
90
94/
25
60
L12
90
70
75
90
75
100
100
85
94/
50
70
L13
85
70
85
95
80
88
90
90
94/
56
90

184
Table B-15 Performance of LH NCS on Florida Affect Battery
(percent correct by subtest)
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8a
8b
9
LC1
100
85
90
95
75
69
100
75
75/
50
80
LC2
80
95
90
100
95
94
100
10
0
100
/81
100
LC3
95
85
90
95
90
100
95
10
0
88/
88
95
LC4
100
85
75
100
90
100
100
70
94/
38
75
LC5
90
85
85
90
80
100
70
70
81/
44
90
LC6
100
85
95
100
100
100
100
90
100
/75
90
LC7
100
75
100
100
90
100
100
75
94/
50
70
LC8
85
90
90
100
80
100
85
70
81/
56
60
LC9
50
90
80
95
80
88
100
70
88/
50
90
LC10
85
95
90
95
100
100
100
10
0
88/
94
95
LC11
90
90
75
80
50
94
100
95
94/
69
80
LC12
95
85
90
95
80
100
100
70
81/
50
80

APPENDIX C
STATISTICAL INFORMATION
Table C-l ANOVA Table of Mean Heart Rate Change during
Psychophysiological Screening
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig
of F
Group
2.228
3
. 743
.419
. 740
4
Subj ect(Group
)
76.260
43
1.773
Tone
2.814
1
2.814
1.634
.208
0
Tone by Group
1.125
3
. 375
.218
. 883
5
Tone by
Subj ect(Group
)
74.059
43
1.722
185

186
Table C-2 ANOVA Table of D1 during Psychophysiological Screening
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
258.12
3
86.04
1.73
. 1760
Subject(Group)
2144.46
43
49.87
Tone
161.89
1
161.89
8.63
. 0053
Tone by Group
30.87
3
10.29
. 5482
. 6521
Tone by
Subject(Group)
807.04
43
18.77
Block
121.30
7
17.33
1.398
5
.2054
Block by Group
176.37
21
8.40
. 6778
. 8544
Block by
Subj ect(Group)
3729.46
301
12.39
Tone by Block
142.15
7
20.31
1.227
.2875
Tone by Block by
Group
330.67
21
15.74
. 9514
. 5246
Tone by Block by
Subject(Group)
4981.73
301
16.55

187
Table C-3 ANOVA Table of Percentage of SCR Responses during
Psychophysiological Screening
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig of
F
Group
9348.16
3
3116.05
2.037
. 1229
Subject(Group)
65787.31
43
15299.93
Tone
14.76
1
14.76
.200
. 6570
Tone by Group
53.55
3
17.85
. 242
. 8667
Tone by
Subject(Group)
3173.68
43
73.81
Table C-4 ANOVA Table of Recoded Range Corrected SCR during
Psychophysiological Screening
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG OF F
Group
19797.76
3
6599.3
1.91
. 1421
Subj ect(Group)
148487.88
43
3453.2
Block
1880.28
7
268.61
1.20
.3017
Block by Group
3297.22
21
157.01
. 702
. 8305
Block by
Subject(Group)
67297.82
301
223.58
Tone
69.80
1
69.80
.209
. 6495
Tone by Group
328.28
3
109.43
. 328
. 8049
Tone by
Subject(Group)
14330.56
43
333.27
Block by Tone
1117.39
7
159.63
. 7574
Block by Tone
by Group
4902.51
21
233.45
.598
. 6244
Block by Tone
by
Subject(Group)
80333.97
301
266.89
. 875

Heart Rate (Beats per Minute)
0.4
Time (Half Seconds)
Figure C-1 Heart Rate Change Scores in NCs during Shock Task
188

Heart Rate (Beats per Minute)
1.2
No-Shock
Shock
Time (Half Seconds)
Figure C-2 Heart Rate Change Scores in RHD Ss during Shock Task
189

Heart Rate (Beats per Minute)
Figure o-3 Heart Hate Change Scores in LHD Ss during Shock Task
No-Shock
SMock
190

191
Table C-5 ANOVA Table of Mean HR Change from baseline during Shock
Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG of
F
Group
6.001
3
2.000
1.557
.2137
Subject(Group)
55.246
43
1.285
Tone
. 061
1
. 061
. 050
. 8236
Tone by Group
3.347
3
1.116
. 927
.4361
Tone by
Subj ect
(Group)
51.766
43
1.204

192
Table C-6 ANOVA Table of D1 during Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG of
F
Group
51.64414
3
17.2147
1
2.738
. 0550
Subject (Group)
270.31
43
6.28629
Tone
1.236
1
1.23648
.20271
. 6548
Tone by Group
7.53
3
2.51059
.41159
. 7455
Tone by Subject
(Group)
262.288
43
6.09973
Block
1.85
3
. 618
.18456
. 9067
Block by Group
44.505
9
4.945
1.4761
. 1634
Block by
Subject (Group)
432.15
129
3.350
Tone by Block
12.01
3
4.004
. 84401
.4722
Tone by Block
by Group
89.38
9
9.931
2.0930
. 0346
Tone by Block
by
Subject(Group)
612.09
129
4.745

193
Table C-7 ANOVA Table of D1 during the Shock Condition of the
Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig of
F
Group
10.978
3
3 . 659
.4798
.6980
Subj ect(Group)
327.952
43
7.627
Block
4.743
3
1.581
.3504
. 7889
Block by Group
63.939
9
7.104
1.574
. 1295
Block by
Subject(Group)
582.118
129
4.512
Table C-8 ANOVA Table of D1 during the No-Shock Condition of the
Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig of
F
Group
48.198
3
16.066
3.376
. 0268
Subj ect(Group)
204.647
43
4.759
Block
9.126
3
3.042
. 849
.4695
Block by Group
69.946
9
7.772
2.169
. 0282
Block by
Subject(Group)
462.121
129
3.582
Table C-9 T-tests of Group Differences in D1 during the No-Shock
Condition of the Shock Task
Mean
Diff .
DF
T-Value
P-Value
LHD,
CONS
- . 748
33
-1.802
. 0807
LHD,
RHD
-1.144
22
-2.605
. 0162
RHD,
CONS
- . 396
33
-1.015
.3174

194
Table C-10 T-Tests of D1 during the No-Shock Condition of
Block 1 during the Shock Task
Mean Diff.
DF
T-value
P-value
LHD, CONS
. 985
33
1.353
. 1852
LHD, RHD
.425
22
. 633
. 5331
RHD, CONS
- . 560
33
- .860
.3962
Table C-ll T-Tests of D1 during the No-Shock Condition of Block
2 during the Shock Task
Mean.
Diff.
DF
T-value
P-value
LHD,
CONS
-1.773
33
-2.103
. 0432
LHD,
RHD
-2.183
22
-2.624
. 0155
RHD,
CONS
- .410
33
-.596
.5555
Table C-12 T-Tests of D1 during the No-Shock Condition of Block
3 during the Shock Task
Mean Diff.
DF
T-value
P-value
LHD, CONS
-2.063
33
-2.515
. 0170
LHD, RHD
-1.717
22
-1.579
. 1285
RHD, CONS
.346
33
. 546
. 5890
Table C-13 T-Tests of D1 duirng the No-Shock Condition of Block
4 during the Shock Task
Mean Diff.
DF
T-value
P-value
LHD,
CONS
- . 140
33
- .240
. 8117
LHD,
RHD
-1.100
22
-1.453
.1604
RHD,
CONS
- . 960
33
-1.556
.1293 j

195
Table C-14 ANOVA Table of A1 during the Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
43.615
3
14.538
. 5841
. 6287
Subject(Group)
1070.271
43
24.890
Tone
7.662
1
7.662
.5711
.4539
Tone by Group
80.463
3
26.821
1.999
. 1283
Tone by
Subject(Group)
576.846
43
13.415
Block
5.838
3
1.946
. 2105
. 8890
Block by Group
93.773
9
10.419
1.127
.3483
Block by
Subject(Group)
1192.472
129
9.244
Tone by Block
12.345
3
4.115
.4860
. 6926
Tone by Block
by Group
101.138
9
11.238
1.3273
. 2290
Tone by Block
by
Subject(Group)
1092.172
129
8.466

196
Table C-15 ANOVA Table of D2 during the Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
19.510
3
6.503
1.129
.3479
Subject(Group)
247.622
43
5.759
Tone
6.757
1
6.757
. 835
.3660
Tone by Group
27.798
3
9.266
1.144
. 3419
Tone by
Subject(Group)
348.099
43
8.095
Block
6.425
3
2.142
. 563
. 6401
Block by Group
80.236
9
8.915
2.345
. 0175
Block by
Subject(Group)
490.355
129
3.801
Tone by Block
10.192
3
3,397
. 644
. 5879
Tone by Block
by Group
78.850
9
8.761
1.662
. 1047
Tone by Block
by
Subject(Group)
680.128
129
5.272

197
Table C-16 ANOVA Table of Block 1 of D2 during the Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig of
F
Group
7.390
3
2.463
. 9224
.4381
Residual
114.833
43
2.671
Table C-17 ANOVA Table of Block 2 of D2 during the Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig of
F
Group
32.772
3
10.924
5.557
. 0026
Residual
84.522
43
1.966
Table C-18 ANOVA Table of Block 3 of D2 during the Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig of
F
Group
4.335
3
1.445
. 7053
. 5541
Residual
88.092
43
2.049
Table C-19 ANOVA Table of Block 4 of D2 during the Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig of
F
Group
5.377
3
1.792
. 9452
.4272
Residual
81.541
43
1.896

198
Table C-20 T-Tests of Group Differences in D2 during Block 2 of
the Shock Task
Group
Mean Diff.
DF
T-Value
P-Value
LHD,
CONS
-1.582
33
-3.263
. 0026
LHD,
RHD
-2.188
22
-3.273
. 0035
RHD,
CONS
- . 605
33
-1.362
.1824
Table C-21 ANOVA Table of Percentage of SCR Responses during the
Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG of
F
Group
12897.72
3
4299.242
3.313
. 0287
Subject(Group)
55802.27
43
1297.727
Trial
2481.894
1
2481.894
29.524
. 0001
Trial by Group
1630.972
3
543.657
6.467
. 0010
Trial by
Subject(Group)
3614.773
43
84.064
Table C-22 T-Tests of Percentage of SCR during the Shock Task
Mean Diff.
DF
T-value
P-value
LHD,
CONS
-19.167
34
-1.944
. 0602
LHD,
RHD
2.652
21
.290
. 7744
RHD,
CONS
21.818
33
2.304
. 0276

199
Table C-23 T-Tests of Percentage of SCR Response during the
Shock Condtion of the Shock Task
Mean Diff.
DF
T-value
P-value
LHD, CONS
-27.917
34
-2.582
. 0143
LHD, RHD
1.250
21
. 143
. 8873
RHD, CONS
29.167
33
2.734
. 0100
Table C-24 T-Tests of Percentage of SCR Response during the No-
Shock Condition of the Shock Task
Mean Diff.
DF
T-value
P-value
LHD,
CONS
-10.417
34
-1.095
.2811
LHD,
RHD
4.053
21
.416
.6815 !
RHD,
CONS
14.470
33
-1.627
. 1133

200
Table C-25 ANOVA Table of Recoded Range Corrected SCR during the
Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
7403.641
3
2467.880
2.989
. 0414
Subject(Group)
35502.724
43
825.645
Block
3987.684
3
1329.228
14.059
. 0001
Block by Group
1123.810
9
124.868
1.321
.2323
Block by
Subject(Group)
12196.852
129
94.549
Tone
4191.208
1
4191.208
23.357
.0001
Tone by Group
3551.953
3
1183.984
6.5980
. 0009
Tone by
Subject(Group)
7716.130
43
179.445
Block by Tone
934.601
3
311.534
3.829
. 0115
Block by Tone
by Group
355.217
9
39.469
.485
. 8825
Block by Tone
by
Subject(Group)
10495.213
129
81.358

201
Table C-26 T-Tests of Group Differences in Recoded Range
Corrected SCR during the Shock Task
Group
Mean Diff.
DF
T-Value
P-Value
LHD, CONS
-6.179
34
-1.544
. 1319
LHD, RHD
3.036
21
. 792
.4373
RHD, CONS
9.215
33
2.601
. 0138
Table C-27 T-Tests of Block Differences in Recoded Range
Corrected SCR during the Shock Task
Block
Mean Diff.
DF
T-Value
P-Value
Block 1, Block 2
6.290
46
4.244
. 0001
Block 1, Block 3
8.044
46
4.572
<.0001
Block 1, Block 4
7.910
46
4.303
<.0001
Block 2, Block 3
1.754
46
1.812
. 0765
Block 2, Block 4
1.620
46
1.396
.1694
Block 3, Block 4
- .134
46
- .115
. 9092
Table C-28 T-Tests of Condition Differences in Recoded Range
Corrected SCR by Block during the Shock Task
Blocks
Mean
DF
T-Value
P-Value
Diff.
Block
1
-11.345
46
-4.655
<.0001
Block
2
-4.751
46
-2.264
. 0284
Block
3
-3.089
46
-1.449
. 1542
Block
4
-8.101
46
-3.433
. 0013

202
Table C-29 T-Tests of Recoded Range Corrected SCR during the No-
Shock Condition of the Shock Task
Mean
Diff
DF
T
P
LHD,
CONS
- . 726
34
- .417
. 6792
LHD,
RHD
. 054
21
. 029
. 9775
RHD,
CONS
.780
33
.4815
. 6335
Table C-30 T-Tests of Recoded Range Corrected SCR during the NO-
No-Shock Condition of the Shock Task
Mean
Diff
DF
T
P
LHD,
CONS
-11.529
34
-2.152
. 0386
LHD,
RHD
3.840
21
. 919
.3685
RHD,
CONS
-15.834
33
3.099
. 0040

203
Table C-31 ANOVA Table of Corrugator EMG during the Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
. 038
3
. 013
.287
. 8349
Subject(Group)
1.948
44
. 044
Block
.004
3
. 001
. 127
. 9438
Block by Group
. 032
9
. 003
.356
. 9536
Block by
Subject(Group)
1.31
132
. 010
Tone
. 013
1
. 013
1.246
. 2703
Tone by Group
.015
3
.005
.467
.7071
Tone by
Subject(Group)
.457
44
. 010
Block by Tone
.020
3
.007
.627
.5989
Block by Tone
by Group
. 110
9
. 012
1.157
.3276
Block by Tone
by
Subject(Group)
1.390
132
. Oil

204
Table C-32 ANOVA Table of Right-sided Zygomatic EMG during the
Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
. 026
3
. 009
.365
.7788
Subject(Group)
1.038
44
.024
Block
. 023
3
. 008
1.148
.3321
Block by Group
. 097
9
. Oil
1.641
. 1100
Block by
Subject(Group)
. 866
132
. 007
Tone
. 007
1
. 007
. 952
.3346
Tone by Group
. 051
3
. 017
2.35
. 0856
Tone by
Subject(Group)
.316
44
. 007
Block by Tone
. 032
3
. Oil
. 982
.4035
Block by Tone
by Group
. 101
9
. Oil
1.035
.4157
Block by Tone
by
Subject(Group)
1.438
132
. Oil

205
Table C-33 ANOVA Table of Left-sided Zygomatic during the Shock
Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
. 054
3
. 018
1.316
.2811
Subject(Group)
. 605
44
. 014
Block
. 010
3
. 003
.446
.7203
Block by Group
. 158
9
. 018
2.451
. 0130
Block by
Subject(Group)
. 945
13
2
. 007
Tone
.010
1
. 010
1.417
.2403
Tone by Group
.032
3
. 010
1.449
.2416
Tone by
Subject(Group)
.323
44
.007
Block by Tone
. 007
3
. 002
. 171
. 9157
Block by Tone
by Group
. 070
9
. 008
.605
. 7913
Block by Tone
by
Subject(Group)
1.700
13
2
. 013

206
Table C-34 ANOVA Table of Left-sided Zygomatic EMG for Block 1
of the Shock Task
SS-
DF
MS
F
Sig
of F
Group
. 041
3
. 0136
3.054
. 0382
Residual
. 195
44
. 0044
Table C-35 ANOVA Table of Left-sided Zygomatic EMG for Block 2
of the Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig
of F
Group
. 0303
3
. 0101
1.657
.1901
Residual
.2684
44
. 0061
Table C-36 ANOVA Table of Left-sided Zygomatic EMG for Block 3
of the Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig
of F
Group
. 0144
3
. 0048
1.543
.2167
Residual
. 1367
44
. 0031
Table C-37 ANOVA Table of Left-sided Zygomatic EMG for Block 4
of the Shock Task
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig
of F
Group
. 0208
3
. 0069
1.743
.1720
Residual
. 1748
44
. 0040

207
Table C-38 T-Tests of Group Differences in Block 1 of Left-sided
Zygomatic EMG during the Shock Task
Group
Mean Diff.
DF
T-Value
P-Value
LHD, LH NCS
- . 060
22
-2.264
. 0338
LHD, RHD
- . 067
22
-2.091
. 0483
LHD, RH NCS
- . 072
22
-2.451
. 0227
LH NCS, RHD
- . 007
22
- .288
. 7763
LH NCS, RH NCS
- . 012
22
- . 557
. 5829
RHD, RH NCS
- . 004
22
- . 164
. 8713

208
Table C-39 Kruskal-Wallis Tests of SAM Ratings during Shock Task
Corrected for Ties
Chi-
Square
Significance
Chi-
Square
Significance
Valence
(Shock)
1.993
. 5734
2.0433
. 5635
Valence
(Control)
. 0410
. 9978
. 0612
. 9960
Arousal
(Shock)
1.2324
. 7453
1.2654
.7374
Arousal
(Control)
1.2959
. 7301
1.8491
.6043
Dominance
(Shock)
1.8565
.6027
2.0384
. 5645
Dominance
(Control)
.2111
. 9758
.3150
. 9572

Heart Rate (Beats per Minute)
â–  No-Reward
1 Reward
Figure C-4 Heart Rate Change Scores in NCs during Reward Task
209

Heart Rate (Beats per Minute)
0.6
â–  No-Reward
-- Reward
Figure C-5 Heart Rate Change Scores in RHD Ss during Reward Task
210

Heart Rate (Beats per Minute)
1
-1.5
Time (Half Seeonds)
â–  No-Reward
â–  Reward
Figure C-6 Heart Rate Change Scores in LHD Ss during Reward Task
211

212
Table C-40 ANOVA Table of Mean HR Change from Baseline during
the Reward Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG of j
F
Group
2.94891
3
. 98297
.76216
. 5215
Subject(Group)
55.45809
43
1.28972
Tone
1.55279
1
1.55279
. 96105
.3324
Tone by Group
2.06203
3
.68734
.42541
.7358
Tone by
Subject
(Group)
69.47577
43
1.61572
Table C-41 ANOVA Table of D1 during the Reward Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIF
of F
Group
75.56907
3
25.18969
1.3618
.2672
Subject(Group)
795.37279
43
18.49704
Tone
. 00002
1
.00002
.00000
. 9988
Tone by Group
10.11084
3
3.37028
.38576
.7638
Tone by
Subject(Group)
375.67775
43
8.73669
Block
8.88889
3
2.96296
.45990
.7108
Block by Group
37.20585
9
4.13398
.64166
.7596
Block by
Subject(Group)
831.09682
129
6.44261
Tone by Block
8.23695
3
2.74565
.54872
. 6499
Tone by Block
by Group
32.81069
9
3.64563
.72859
. 6820
Tone by Block
by
Subject(Group)
645.47852
129
5.00371

213
Table C-42 ANOVA Table of A1 during the Reward Task
SS
DF
MS
F
P
Group
46.60895
3
15.5363
2
. 66432
. 5786
Subject(Group)
1005.63880
43
23.3869
5
Tone
10.35746
1
10.3574
6
.79977
.3761
Tone by Group
23.66528
3
7.88843
.60912
. 6127
Tone by
Subject(Group)
556.87177
43
12.9505
1
Block
16.50844
3
5.50281
. 63107
. 5962
Block by Group
25.22869
9
2.80319
.32148
. 9667
Block by
Subject(Group)
1124.84796
129
8.71975
Tone by Block
4.64534
3
1.54845
.19863
.8972
Tone by Block
by Group
47.42106
9
5.26901
.67590
.7295
Tone by Block
by
Subject(Group)
1005.62893
129
7.79557

214
Table C-43 ANOVA Table of D2 during the Reward Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIF
of F
Group
47.90806
3
15.9694
.85091
.4738
Subject(Group)
80699422
43
18.7673
Tone
4.18219
1
4.18219
.40701
. 5269
Tone by Group
9.15995
3
3.05332
.29715
. 8272
Tone by
Subject(Group)
441.84627
43
10.2755
Block
34.85478
3
11.6183
1.8012
. 1502
Block by Group
53.03792
9
5.89310
.91366
. 5156
Block by
Subject(Group)
832.04873
129
6.44999
Tone by Block
15.82781
3
5.27594
.72497
.5389
Tone by Block
by Group
48.26175
9
5.36242
.73685
. 6745
Tone by Block
by
Subject(Group)
938.79032
129
7.27744

215
Table C-44 ANOVA Table of Percentage of SCR Responses during the
Reward Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG of
F
Group
1267.493
3
422.498
.4776
.6996
Subject(Group)
38042.614
43
884.712
Trial
26.397
1
26.397
. 5624
.4574
Trial by Group
261.948
3
87.316
1.8602
. 1507
Trial by
Subject(Group)
2018.371
43
46.939

216
Table C-45 ANOVA Table of Recoded Range Corrected SCR during the
Reward Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
1587.75565
3
529.25188
.6911
. 5625
Subject(Group)
32929.5129
43
765.80263
Block
872.80795
3
290.93598
2.841
. 0405
Block by Group
367.05610
9
40.78401
.3983
. 9340
Block by
Subject(Group)
13210.1142
129
102.40399
Tone
38.93401
1
38.93401
.4692
.4970
Tone by Group
49.28116
3
16.42705
.1980
.8972
Tone by
Subject(Group)
3568.1784
43
82.98089
Block by Tone
839.36650
3
279.7888
3.316
. 0221
Block by Tone by
Group
590.95788
9
65.66199
. 7781
.6369
Block by Tone by
Subject(Group)
10886.243
129
84.38948

217
Table C-46 T-Tests of Block Differences in Recoded Range
Corrected SCR during the Reward Task
Block
Mean Diff.
DF
T-Value
P-Value
Block 1, Block 2
3.823
46
2.727
. 0090
Block 1, Block 3
3.492
46
1.923
. 0607
Block 1, Block 4
2.800
46
1.432
. 1588
Block 2, Block 3
- .332
46
- .328
. 7446
Block 2, Block 4
-1.023
46
- .899
.3732
Block 3, Block 4
- .691
46
- .643
.5236
Table C-47 T-Tests of Condition Differences in Recoded Range
Corrected SCR by Block during the Reward Task
Blocks
Mean
DF
T-Value
P-Value
Diff.
Block
1
5.681
46
3.172
. 0027
Block
2
-1.039
46
- . 654
.5163
Block
3
-2.024
46
-1.199
.2365
Block
4
- .140
46
- .060
. 9522

218
Table C-48 ANOVA Table of Corrugator EMG during the Reward Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
.233
3
. 078
. 800
. 5003
Subject(Group)
4.265
44
.097
Block
.098
3
. 033
1.067
.3654
Block by Group
.388
9
. 043
1.401
. 1940
Block by
Subject(Group)
4.060
132
. 031
Tone
. 020
1
. 020
.397
. 5318
Tone by Group
. 084
3
. 028
.558
. 6454
Tone by
Subject(Group)
2.210
44
. 050
Block by Tone
. 086
3
. 029
.599
. 6170
Block by Tone
by Group
.602
9
. 067
1.397
. 1956
Block by Tone
by
Subject(Group)
6.319
132
. 048

219
Table C-49 ANOVA Table of Left-Sided Zygomatic EMG during
Reward Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
.300
3
. 100
1.783
. 1644
Subject(Group)
2.473
44
. 056
Block
. 063
3
. 021
. 688
. 5612
Block by Group
.395
9
.044
1.432
. 1807
Block by
Subject(Group)
4.047
132
. 031
Tone
. 018
1
. 018
. 687
.4118
Tone by Group
. 021
3
. 007
.270
. 8466
Tone by
Subject(Group)
1.128
44
. 026
Block by Tone
.075
3
. 025
. 757
.5202
Block by Tone
by Group
.216
9
. 024
.731
. 6799
Block by Tone
by
Subject(Group)
4.332
132
. 033

220
Table C-50 ANOVA Table of Right-sided Zygomatic EMG during the
Reward Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
. 063
3
. 021
.410
.7469
Subject(Group)
2.251
44
. 051
Block
. 041
3
. 014
. 629
. 5975
Block by Group
.271
9
. 030
1.388
.1996
Block by
Subject(Group)
2.867
132
. 022
Tone
. 001
1
. 001
. 080
.7782
Tone by Group
. 032
3
. 011
1.404
.2543
Tone by
Subject(Group)
.337
44
. 008
Block by Tone
. 001
3
. 001
. 023
. 9952
Block by Tone
by Group
. 107
9
. 012
1.063
.3947
Block by Tone
by
Subject(Group)
1.473
132
. Oil

221
Table C-51 Kruskal-Wallis Tests of SAM Ratings during Reward Task
Corrected for Ties
Chi-
Square
Significance
Chi-
Square
Significance
Valence
(Reward)
1.4598
. 6916
2.2787
. 5166
Valence
(Control)
.4543
. 9288
.4623
. 9271
Arousal
(Reward)
5.9702
. 1131
6.3427
. 0961
Arousal
(Control)
1.1635
. 7618
1.2536
. 7402
Dominance
(Reward)
1.0096
. 7989
1.3885
.7082
Dominance
(Control)
. 8140
. 8461
1.0466
. 7900

222
Table C-52 ANOVA Table of Mean HR Change from Baseline comparing
Shock and Reward Tasks
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
5.663
3
1.888
1.060
.3758
Subject(Group)
76.542
43
1.780
Condition
. 919
1
. 919
.237
. 6289
Condition by
Group
4.656
3
1.552
.400
.7537
Condition by
Subject(Group)
166.798
43
3.879

223
Table C-53 ANOVA Table of D1 comparing Shock and Reward Tasks
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
21.623
3
7.208
. 7057
. 5539
Subject(Group)
439.211
43
10.214
Block
11.793
3
3.930
.3313
. 8028
Block by Group
140.416
9
15.608
1.3148
.2353
Block by
Subject(Group)
1530.77
129
11.866
Condition
. 153
1
.153
. 0100
. 9208
Condition by Group
32.091
3
10.697
.6971
. 5589
Condition by
Subject(Group)
659.807
43
15.344
Block by Condition
24.706
3
8.265
. 9892
.4002
Block by Condition
by Group
43.727
9
4.859
.5836
. 8087
Block by Condition
by Subject(Group)
1074.00
129
8.326

224
Table C-54 ANOVA Table of A1 comparing Shock and Reward Tasks
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
98.429
3
32.810
1
. 667
. 1882
Subject(Group)
846.152
43
19.678
Block
3.623
3
1.208
. 0730
. 9744
Block by Group
203.068
9
22.563
1
.363
.2116
Block by
Subject(Group)
2135.53
129
16.555
Condition
41.456
1
41.456
1
.395
.2440
Condition by Group
172.971
3
57.657
1
. 941
. 1373
Condition by
Subject(Group)
1277.51
43
29.710
Block by Condition
30.398
3
10.133
.
773
. 5114
Block by Condition
by Group
200.119
9
22.235
1
.695
. 0964
Block by Condition
by Subject(Group)
1691.90
129
13.115

225
Table C-55 ANOVA Table of D2 comparing Shock and Reward Tasks
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
58.169
3
19.390
1.373
.2639
Subject(Group)
607.428
43
14.126
Block
21.842
3
7.281
. 5564
. 6448
Block by Group
153.363
9
17.040
1.3021
.2419
Block by
Subject(Group)
1688.14
129
13.087
Condition
. 1089
1
. 109
. 0037
. 9517
Condition by Group
68.835
3
22.944
.7807
.5113
Condition by
Subject(Group)
1263.85
43
29.392
Block by Condition
20.387
3
6.796
. 6272
.5987
Block by Condition
by Group
50.065
9
5.563
. 5134
. 8627
Block by Condition
by Subject(Group)
1397.76
129
10.835

226
Table C-56 ANOVA Table of Percentage of SCR Responses comparing
Shock and Reward Tasks
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig
of F
Group
2764.21
3
921.40
6.53
. 0010
Subject(Group)
6063.45
43
141.01
Condition
1996.37
1
1996.37
16.50
. 0002
Condition by Group
1021.63
3
340.54
2.81
. 0504
Condition by
Subject(Group)
5202.84
43
121.00
Table C-57 T-Tests of Group Differences in Percentage of Responses
for Recoded Range Corrected SCR during the Shock and Reward Tasks
Combined
Mean
Diff.
DF
T-value
P-value
LHD,
CONS
-9.583
34
-2.861
. 0072
LHD,
RHD
1.477
21
. 776
.4465
RHD,
CONS
11.061
33
3.282
.0024

227
Table C-58 T-Tests of Percentage of Responses for Recoded Range
Corrected SCR during the Shock Task
Mean
Diff.
DF
T-value
P-value
LHD,
CONS
-17.50
34
- .3443
. 0015
LHD,
RHD
-2.803
21
-1.000
. 3285
RHD,
CONS
14.697
33
2.814
. 0082
Table C-59 T-Tests of Percentage of Responses for Recoded Range
Corrected SCR during the Reward Task
Mean
Diff.
DF
T-value
P-value
LHD,
CONS
-1.667
34
- .461
. 6475
LHD,
RHD
5.758
21
2.158
. 0426
RHD,
CONS
7.424
33
1.882
. 0687

228
Table C-60 ANOVA Table of Recoded Range Corrected SCR comparing
Shock and Reward Tasks
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
2351.40
3
783.805
3.07
. 0377
Subject(Group)
10976.56
43
255.27
Block
595.58
3
198.52
1.33
.2670
Block by Group
1018.28
9
113.14
. 7588
.6545
Block by
Subject(Group)
19234.29
129
149.10
Condition
3573.57
1
3573.57
23.21
. 0001
Condition by Group
1335.61
3
445.20
2.89
. 0462
Condition by
Subject(Group)
6619.34
43
153.94
Block by Condition
4598.28
3
1532.76
9.18
. 0001
Block by Condition
by Group
1831.17
9
203.46
1.22
.2891
Block by Condition
by Subject(Group)
21536.40
129
166.95

229
Table C-61 T-Tests of Group Differences in Recoded Range Corrected
SCR during Shock and Reward Tasks Combined
Mean
Diff.
DF
T-value
P-value
LHD,
CONS
-5.732
34
-2.285
. 0287
LHD,
RHD
1.310
21
1.029
.3154
RHD,
CONS
7.042
33
2.733
. 0100
Table C-62 T-Tests of Block Differences in Recoded Range Corrected
SCR comparing the Shock and Reward Tasks
Mean
Diff.
DF
T-Value
P-Value
Shock
Blockl,
17.027
46
4.724
<.0001
Reward
Blockl
Shock
Block 2,
3.712
46
1.586
. 1195
Reward
Block 2
Shock
Block 3,
1.065
46
.433
.6671
Reward
Block 3
Shock
Block 4,
7.961
46
2.925
. 0053
Reward
Block 4

230
Table C-63 T-Tests of Recoded Range Corrected SCR during Shock
Task
Mean
DF
T-value
P-value
Diff.
LHD,
CONS
-10.699
34
-2.809
. 0082
LHD,
RHD
1.608
21
. 721
.4790
RHD,
CONS
12.306
33
3.234
. 0028
Table C-64 T-Tests of Recoded Range Corrected SCR during Reward
Tasks
Mean
Diff.
DF
T-value
P-value
LHD,
CONS
- .765
34
- .321
. 7503
LHD,
RHD
1.012
21
.592
. 5604
RHD,
CONS
1.777
33
.686
.4973

231
Table C-65 ANOVA Table of Corrugator EMG compairng Shock and
Reward Tasks
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig of
F
Group
. 1982
3
. 066
. 7044
. 5545
Subject(Group)
4.128
44
.094
Condition
. 009
1
. 009
. 3418
. 5618
Condition by
Group
. 051
3
. 017
. 6437
. 5911
Condition by
Subject(Group)
1.159
44
. 026
Block
. 035
3
. 012
. 1982
.8975
Block by Group
.786
9
. 087
1.486
. 1535
Block by
Subject(Group)
7.761
132
. 059
Condition by
Block
. 146
3
. 049
.8974
.4445
Condition by
Block by Group
.433
9
. 048
. 8854
. 5402
Condition by
Block by
Subject(Group)
7.164
132
. 054

232
Table C-66 ANOVA Table of Left-sided Zygomatic EMG compairng Shock
and Reward Tasks
SS '
DF
MS
F
Sig of
F
Group
. 054
3
. 018
. 5827
. 6295
Subject(Group)
1.372
44
. 031
Condition
. 001
1
. 001
. 0271
. 8700
Condition by
Group
. 051
3
. 017
.4874
. 6928
Condition by
Subject(Group)
1.530
44
. 035
Block
. 118
3
. 039
.7502
. 5241
Block by Group
. 167
9
. 019
.3546
. 9542
Block by
Subject(Group)
6.906
132
. 052
Condition by
Block
. 045
3
. 015
.3799
.7676
Condition by
Block by Group
.405
9
. 045
1.152
.3314
Condition by
Block by
Subject(Group)
5.157
132
.039

233
Table C-67 ANOVA Table of Right-sided Zygomatic EMG compairng
Shock and Reward Tasks
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig of
F
Group
. 057
3
. 019
1.428
.2473
Subject(Group)
.585
44
. 013
Condition
. 003
1
. 003
.204
. 6534
Condition by
Group
. 109
3
. 036
2.211
. 1002
Condition by
Subject(Group)
. 722
44
. 016
Block
. 027
3
. 009
.385
. 7640
Block by Group
.233
9
. 026
1.101
.3667
Block by
Subject(Group)
3.107
132
. 024
Condition by
Block
. 039
3
. 013
.625
.6004
Condition by
Block by Group
. 183
9
. 020
.990
.4517
Condition by
Block by
Subject(Group)
2.716
132
. 021

234
Table C-68 Kruskal-Wallis Tests of SAM Ratings comparing Shock and
Reward Tasks
Corrected for Ties
Chi-
Square
Significance
Chi-
Square
Significance
Valence
(Shock-
Control)
1.7674
. 6220
1.8007
. 6148
Valence
(Reward-
Control)
.6909
. 8753
. 7043
. 8722
Arousal
(Shock-
Control)
1.2634
.7378
1.3071
. 7274
Arousal
(Reward-
Control)
4.4192
.2196
5.1711
.1597
Dominance
(Shock-
Control)
3.3178
.3452
3.8878
.2738
Dominance
(Reward-
Control)
.5085
. 9170
. 8345
. 8412

235
Table C-69 ANCOVA Table of Percentage of SCR Responses during the
Shock Task with Medication as a Covariate
SS
DF
SS
F
Sig of
F
Within and
Residual (Group)
55258.1
3
42
1315.67
Regression
544.14
1
544.14
.41
. 524
Group
8057.17
3
2685.72
2.04
. 123
Within and
Residual (Tone)
3614.77
43
84.06
Tone
2481.89
1
2481.89
29.52
. 000
Tone by Group
1630.97
3
543.66
6.47
. 001

236
Table C-70 ANCOVA Table of Recoded Range Corrected SCR during the
Shock Task with Medication as a Covariate
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig of
F
Within and
Residual (Group)
34779.18
42
828.08
Regression
723.56
1
723.56
. 87
.355
Group
3888.28
3
1296.09
1.57
.212
Within and
Residual (Block
by Group)
12196.85
12
9
94.55
Block
3987.68
3
1329.23
14.06
. 000
Group by Block
1123.81
9
124.87
1.32
.232
Within and
Residual (Tone by
Group)
7716.13
43
179.44
Tone
4191.21
1
4191.21
23.36
. 000
Group by Tone
3551.95
3
1183.98
6.60
. 001
Within and
Residual (Block
by Tone by Group)
10495.21
12
9
81.36
Block by Tone
934.60
3
311.53
3.83
. Oil
Group by Block by
Tone
355.22
9
39.47
.49
.882

237
Table C-71 ANCOVA Table of Percentage of SCR Responses comparing
Shock and Reward Tasks with Medication as a Covariate
ss.
DF
SS
F
Sig of
F
Within and
Residual (Group)
6045.49
42
143.94
Regression
17.95
1
17.95
. 12
.726
Group
2266.16
3
755.39
5.25
. 004
Within and
Residual (Tone)
5202.84
43
121.00
Tone
1996.37
1
1996.3
7
16.50
. 000
Tone by Group
1021.63
3
340.54
2.81
. 050

238
Table C-72 ANCOVA Table of Recoded Range Corrected SCR comparing
Shock and Reward Tasks with Medication as a Covariate
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig of
F
Within and
Residual (Group)
13749.50
42
327.37
Regression
92.04
1
92.04
.28
.599
Group
3748.05
3
1249.35
3.82
. 017
Within and
Residual (Block
by Group)
21210.09
129
164.42
Block
132.40
3
44.13
.27
. 848
Group by Block
586.50
9
65.17
.40
. 935
Within and
Residual (Tone by
Group)
8727.08
43
202.96
Tone
5038.05
1
5038.05
24.82
. 000
Group by Tone
2929.75
3
976.58
4.81
. 006
Within and
Residual (Block
by Tone by Group)
21552.83
129
167.08
Block by Tone
3415.53
3
1138.51
6.81
. 000
Group by Block by
Tone
1305.85
9
145.09
. 87
. 555

239
Table C-73 ANOVA Table of Positive Affect during Shock Task of
Experiment Two
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
458.69792
3
152.89931
. 74276
. 5323
Subj ect(Group)
9057.54167
44
205.85322
Trial
1.76042
1
1.76042
. 19338
. 6623
Trial by Group
15.19792
3
5.06597
. 55650
. 6465
Trial by
Subj ect(Group)
400.54167
44
9.10322
Table C-74 ANOVA Table of Negative Affect during Shock Task of
Experiment Two
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
39.58333
3
13.19444
.39313
. 7585
Subject(Group)
1476.75000
44
33.56250
Trial
24.00000
1
24.00000
9.5207
. 0035
Trial by Group
6.08333
3
2.02778
.80441
.4982
Trial by
Subj ect(Group)
110.91667
44
2.52083

240
Table C-75 Kruskal-Wallis Tests of SAM Ratings during Shock Task
of Experiment Two
Corrected for Ties
Chi-
Square
Significance
Chi-
Square
Significance
Valence
(Shock)
1.0028
. 8006
1.0581
. 7872
Valence
(Control)
2.5091
.4736
3.2613
.3531
Arousal
(Shock)
1.4768
. 6876
1.6324
. 6521
Arousal
(Control)
5.2128
. 1569
8.6035
. 0351
Dominance
(Shock)
4.1869
. 2420
5.9760
. 1128
Dominance
(Control)
1.2881
. 7320
-
3.0704
.3809

241
Table C-76 Mann-Whitney U, Wilcoxon Rank Sum W Tests of Arousal
Ratings during the No-Shock Condition of the Shock Task of
Experiment Two
Corrected for Ties
U
W
P-
Value
Z
Significance
LHD,
LH NCS
42.5
179.5
. 0887
-2.1239
. 0337
LHD,
RHD
71.5
149.5
. 9774
-.0602
. 9520
LHD,
RH NCS
50.5
171.5
.2189
-1.6441
. 1001
LH NCS,
RHD
40.5
118.5
. 0684
-2.2718
. 0231
LH NCS,
RH NCS
58.5
136.5
. 4428
-.8686
.3851
RHD,
RH NCS
48.0
174.0
. 1782
-1.8459
. 0649

242
Table C-77 ANOVA Table of Positive Affect during the Reward Task
of Experiment Two
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
225.19068
3
75.06356
.49119
. 6902
Subject(Group)
6571.23485
43
152.81942
Trial
230.83636
1
230.83636
7.5209
. 0089
Trial by Group
141.83672
3
47.27891
1.5404
.2178
Trial by
Subject(Group)
1319.78030
43
30.69257
Table C-78 ANOVA Table of Negative Affect during the Reward Task
of Experiment Two
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
46.02345
3
15.34115
.46770
. 7063
Subject(Group)
1410.46591
43
32.80153
Trial
. 12803
1
. 12803
.19847
. 6582
Trial by Group
5.09115
3
1.69705
2.6307
. 0621
Trial by
Subject(Group)
27.73864
43
. 64508

243
Table C-79 Kruskal-Wallis Tests of SAM Ratings during Reward Task
of Experiment Two
Corrected for Ties
Chi-
Square
Significance
Chi-
Square
Significance
Valence
(Reward)
1.2277
. 7464
2.4519
.4840
Valence
(Control)
. 0086
. 9998
. 0122
. 9996
Arousal
(Reward)
5.3693
. 1467
6.6205
. 0850
Arousal
(Control)
2.7838
.4262
5.0710
. 1667
Dominance
(Reward)
1.4177
. 7014
2.8305
.4185
Dominance
(Control)
. 6541
. 8839
2.2841
. 5156

244
Table C-80 ANOVA Table of Positive Affect comparing Shock and
Reward Tasks during Experiment Two
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
150.64
3
50.21
. 9899
.4066
Subj ect(Group)
2181.11
43
50.72
Condition
186.88
1
186.88
6.400
. 0152
Condition by
Group
165.79
3
55.26
1.892
. 1451
Condition by
Subj ect(Group)
1255.53
43
29.198
Table C-81 ANOVA Table of Negative Affect comparing Shock and
Reward Tasks of Experiment Two
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG
of F
Group
12.58
3
4.19
1.24
.3063
Subject(Group)
145.25
43
3.38
Condition
26.49
1
26.49
8.64
. 0053
Condition by
Group
10.04
3
3.35
1.09
.3629
Condition by
Subject(Group)
131.79
43
3.06

245
Table C-82 Kruskal-Wallis Tests of SAM Ratings comparing Shock and
Reward Tasks of Experiment Two
Corrected for Ties
Chi-
Square
Significance
Chi-
Square
Significance
Valence
(Shock-
Control)
. 5716
. 9029
. 64459
. 8862
Valence
(Reward-
Control )
. 5996
. 8965
.8825
. 8296
Arousal
(Shock-
Control )
4.3484
.2262
4.9789
. 1733
Arousal
(Reward-
Control )
3.9173
.2705
5.2062
. 1573
Dominance
(Shock-
Control )
2.5942
.4585
4.4929
.2129
Dominance
(Reward-
Control )
.6716
. 8799
1.9981
. 5728

REFERENCES
Ahern, G. L., & Schwartz, G. E. (1979). Differential
lateralization for positive versus negative
emotions. Neuropsvcholoaia. 17, 693-698.
Ahern, G. L. & Schwartz, G. L. (1985). Differential
lateralization for positive and negative emotions
in the human brain: EEG spectral analysis.
Neuropsvcholoaia, 23, 745-756.
Anderson, S. W., Damasio, H., & Tranel, D. (1990).
Neuropsychological impairments associated with
lesions caused by tumor or stroke. A.rchives of
Neurology, 47, 397-405.
Annett, M. (1970). A classification of hand preference by
association analysis. British Journal of Psychology,
61, 303-321.
Arnold, M. (1960). Emotions and personality, (Vols 1,2). New
York: Columbia University Press.
Babinski, J. (1914). Contribution a l'etude des troubles
mentaux dans 1'hemisplegie organique cerbrale
(anosognosie). Revue Neurologiaue, 27, 845-848.
Bankart, C. P., & Elliot, R. (1974). Heart rate and skin
conductance in anticipation of shocks with varying
probability of occurence. Psychophysiology, 11, 160-
174 .
Blonder, L. X., Bowers, D., Heilman, K. M. (1991). The role
of the right hemisphere on emotional communication.
Brain, 114. 1115-1127.
Blonder, L. X., Burns, A., Bowers, D., Moore, R., Heilman,
K. M. (1992). Right hemisphere expressivity during
natural conversation. Journal of Clinical &
Experimental Neuropsychology. 13, 85.
Borod, J. Emotional Expression and Brain Mechanisms:
Lateralization of Behavior in Brain-Damaged and
Normal Adults. Submitted for publication).
246

247
Borod, J. C., Andelman, F., Obler, L. K., Tweedy, J. R., &
Welkowitz, J. (1992) . Right hemisphere specialization
for the identification of emotional words and
sentences: Evidence from stroke patients.
Neuropsychologia.
Borod, J. & Koff, E. (1990). Lateralization for facial
emotion behavior: A methodological perspective.
International Journal of Psychology. 25, 157-177.
Borod, J., Koff, E., Lorch, M., & Nicholas, M. (1985).
Channels of emotional expression in patients with
unilateral brain damage. Archives of Neurology. 42.
345-348.
Borod, J., Koff, E., Perlman-Lorch, J., Nicolas, M. (1986).
The expression and perception of facial emotions in
brain damaged patients. Neuropsvcholoaia. 24., 169-180.
Borod, J. , Koff, E., Perlman-Lorch, M., Nicolas, M., &
Welkowitz, J. (1988). Emotional and nonemotional facial
behavior in patients with unilateral brain damage.
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 51,
826-832.
Borod, J. C., Koff, E., & White, B. (1983). Facial asymmetry
in spontaneous and posed expressions of emotion. Brain
and Cognition. 2, 165-175.
Bowers, D., Bauer, R. M., Coslett, H. B., & Heilman, K. M.
(1985). Processing of faces by patients with unilateral
hemispheric lesions. Dissociation between judgements of
facial affect and facial identity. Brain and Cognition,
4, 258-272.
Bowers, D, Blonder, L. X., Feinberg, T., & Heilman, K. M.
(1991) . Differential impact of right and left
hemisphere lesions on facial emotion and object
imagery. Brain. 114, 1-17.
Bowers, D., Coslett, H. 3., Bauer, R. M., Speedie, L. J.,
Heilman, K. M. (1987). Comprehension of emotional
prosody following unilateral hemispheric lesions:
Processing defect vs. distraction defect.
Neuropsvcholoaia. 25. 317-328.
Bowers, K. S. (1971a). The effects of UCS temporal
uncertainty on heart rate and pain.
Psychophysiology, 8, 382-389.

248
Bowers, K. S. (1971b). Heart rate and GSR concomitants of
vigilance and arousal. Canadian Journal of Psychology,
25. 175-184.
Bradley, M. M., Lang, P. J., Cuthbert, B N. (1991). The
Gainesville murders: imagining the worst. Society for
Psychological Research. 28, sl4 [abstract].
Briggs, G. G., & Nebes, R. D. (1975). Patterns of hand
preference in a student population. Cortex. 11, 230-
238 .
Brown, S. L., & Schwartz, G. E. (1980). Relationships
between facial electromyography and subjective
experience during affective imagery. Biological
Psychology, 11, 49-62.
Brownell, H., Michelon, D., Powelson, J., Gardner, H.
(1983). Surprise but not coherence: Sensitivity to
verbal humor in right hemisphere patients. Brain
and Language. 18, 20-27.
Buck, R. (1990). Using FACS versus communication scores to
measure spontaneous facial expression of emotion in
brain damaged patients. Cortex. 26, 275-280.
Buck, R., Sc Duffy, R. J. (1980) . Nonverbal communication of
affect in brain damaged patients. Cortex. 16. 351-362.
Cacioppo, J. T., Martzke, J. S., Petty, R. E., & Tassinary,
L. G. (1988) . Specific forms of facial EMG response
index emotions during an interview: from darwin to the
continuous flow hypothesis of affect-laden information
processing. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 592-604.
Cacioppo, J. T., Sc Petty, R. E., Losch, M. E., & Kim, H. S.
(1986). Electromyography activity over facial muscle
regions can differentiate the valence and intensity of
affective reactions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 50. 260-268.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Morris, K. J. (1985).
Semantic,evaluative, and self-referent processing:
Memory, cognitive effort, and somatovisceral
activity. Psychophysiology. 22., 371-384.
Cacioppo, J. T. Sc Tassinary, L. G (1990) . Psychophysiology
and psychophysiological inference. In J. T. Cacioppo &
L. G. Tassinary (Eds.), Principles of psychophysiology.
New York: Cambridge University Press.

249
Caltagirone, C., Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., Gainotti, G.,
Mammucari, A., Pizzamiglio, L., & Zoccolatti, P.
(1989). Posed emotional facial expressions in brain
damaged patients. Cortex. 25, 653-663.
Campbell, R. (1978). Asymmetries in interpreting and
expressing a posed facial expression. Cortex. 14.
327-342.
Cancelliere, A. B. & Kertesz, A. (1990). Lesion localization
in acquired deficits of emotional expression and
comprehension. Brain and Cognition, 13, 133-147.
Cannon, W. B. (1927). The James-Lange theory of emotion: a
critical examination and alternative theory. American
Journ of Psychology, 39. 106-124. Reprinted in M.
Arnold (Ed.), The Nature of Emotion. Baltimore:
Penguin, 1968.
Cicone, M., Wapner, W., & Gardner, H. (1980). Sensitivity to
emotional expressions and situations in organic
patients. Cortex. 16. 145-158.
Damasio, H. Y Damasio, A. R. (1989) . Lesion analysis in
neuropsychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Darwin, C. (1872/1965). The expression of emotion in man
and animals, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
(Original work published 1872) .
Davidson, R. J. (1985) Affect, cognition, and
hemisphericspecialization. In C. E. Izard, J.
Kagan, & R. B. Zajonc (Eds.), emotions, cognition,
and behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Davidson, R. J. Parsing affective space: Perspectives from
neuropsychology and psychophysiology. Submitted for
publication.
Davidson, R., Ekman, P., Saron, C., Senulis, J., & Friesen,
W. (1990) . Approach/withdrawal and cerebral asymmetry.
Emotional expression and brain physiology. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 330-341.
Davidson, R. J. & Fox , N. A. (1982). Asymmetrical brain
activity discriminates between positive and negative
affective stimuli in ten month old infants. Science.
218. 1235-1237.
Davidson, R. J. & Schwartz, G. E. (1976). Patterns of
cerebral lateralization during cardiac biofeedback

versus the self-regulation of emotion: Sex
differences. Psychophysiology. 16, 202-203.
250
Davidson, R. J., Schwartz, G. E., Saron, C., Bennett, J., &
Goldman, D. J. (1979). Frontal versus parietal EEG
asymmetry during positive and negative affect.
Psychophysiology. 16, 202-203.
Deane, G. E. (1961). Human heart rate responses during
experimentally induced anxiety. Journal of Experimental
Psychology. 61. 489-493.
Deane, G. E. (1969). Cardiac activity during experimentally
induced anxiety. Psychophysiology. 6, 17-30.
DeKosky, S., Heilman, K. M., Bowers, D., & Valenstein, E.
(1980). Recognition and discrimination of emotional
faces and pictures. Brain and Language. .9/ 206-214.
Denny-Brown, D., Meyer, J. S., & Horenstein, S. (1952). The
significance of perceptual rivalry resulting from
parietal lesions. Brain. 75., 434-471.
Dimberg, U. & Lundquist, L. (1990). Gender differences in
facial reactions to facial expressions. Biological
Psychology. 30. 151-159.
Duda, P. & Brown, J. (1984) . Lateral asymmetry of positive
and negative emotions. Cortex. 20., 253-261.
Duffy, E. (1957). The psychological significance of the
concept of "arousal" and "activation." Psychological
Review. 64. 265-275.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1971). Constants across
cultures in the face and emotion. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 17. 124-129.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1978). The facial action
coding system (FACS): A technique for the measurement
of facial action. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Ekman, P., Levenson, R. W., & Friesen, W. V. (1983) .
Autonomic nervous system activity distinguishes
among emotions. Science. 221. 1208-1210.
Elliot, R. (1966). Effects of uncertainty about the nature
and advent of a noxious stimulus (shock) upon heart
rate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3.,
353-356.

251
Ellsworth, P. C. Sc Smith, C. E. (1988) . Shades of joy:
Appraisals differntiating among positive emotions.
Emotions and Cognition. 2, 301-331.
Erlichman, H., & Weinberger, A. (1978). Lateral eye
movements and hemispheric asymmetry: A critical
review. Psychological Bulletin. 85. 1080-1101.
Etcoff, N. (1984). Perceptual and conceptual organization of
facial emotions. Brain and Cognition. 3, 385-412.
Ferguson, G. A. (1971). Statistical Analysis in Psychology &
Education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fowles, D. C. (1988). Psychophysiology and psychopathology:
A motivational apprach. Psychophysiology, 25, 373-391.
Fridlund, A. J., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Guidelines for
human electromyographic research. Psychophysiology. 23.
567-589.
Fridlund, A., Ekman, P., & Oster, H. (1987). Facial
expressions of emotion: Review of literature,
1970-1983. In A. Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.),
Nonverbal behavior and communication. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fox, N. A., Sc Davidson, R. J. (1984). Hemispheric substrates
of affect: A developmental model. In: N. A. Fox & R. J.
Davidson (Eds.), The psychobiology of affective
development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gainotti, G. (1972). Emotional behavior and hemispheric side
of the lesion. Cortex. 8., 41-55.
Gardner, H., Brownell, H. H., Wapner, W., & Michelon, D.
(1983). Missing the point: The role of the right
hemisphere in the processing of complex linguistic
materials. In E. Perceman (Ed.), Cognitive processing
in the right hemisphere. New York: Academic.
Gardner, H., Ling, P. K., Flam, I., & Silverman, J. (1975).
Comprehension and appreciation of humorous material
following brain damage. Brain. 98., 3 99-412.
Goldstein, K. (1948). Language and language disturbances.
New York: Gruñe Sc Stratton.
Gorelick, P. B., & Ross, E. D. (1987). The aprosodias:
Further functional-anatomical evidence for the
organization of affective language in the right

hemisphere. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and
Psychiatry. 50. 553-560.
252
Graham, F. K., & Clifton, R. K. (1966).Heart rate changes as
a component of the orienting response. Psychological
Bulletin. 65. 305-320.
Graves, R., Landis, T., & Goodlass, H. (1981). Laterality
and sex differences for visual recognition of emotional
and nonemotional words. Neuropsvchologia. 19, 95-102.
Greenwald, M. K., Cook, E. W., & Lang, P. J. (1989) .
Affective judgment and psychophysiological
response: dimensional covariation in the
evaluation of picture stimuli. Journal of
Psychophysiology. 3., 51-64.
Haggard, M. P., & Parkinson, A. M. (1971). Stimulus and task
factors as determinants of ear advantages. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology. 23. 168-177.
Hare. R. D. (1972). Cardiovascular components of orienting
and defensive responses. Psychophysiology. 9., 606-614.
Hare, R. D. (1973). Orienting and defensive responses to
visual stimuli. Psychophysiology. 10., 453-464.
Heilman, K. M., Bowers, D., Speedie, L., & Coslett, B.
(1984) . Comprehension of affective and nonaffective
speech. Neurology. 34., 917-921.
Heilman, K. M., Bowers, D., & Valenstein, E. (1985).
Emotional disorders associated with neurologic
disease. In K. Heilman & E. Valenstein (Eds.).
Clinical Neuropsychology (2nd Ed). New York:
Oxford Press
Heilman, K. M., Bowers, D., & Valenstein, E. (1993).
Emotional disorders associated with neurologic
disease. In K. Heilman & E. Valenstein (Eds.).
Clinical Neuropsychology (3rd Ed). New York:
Oxford Press
Heilman, K. M., Scholes, R., & Watson, R. T. (1975).
Auditory affective agnosia: Disturbed
comprehension of affective speech. Journal of
Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry. 38., 69-
72 .
Heilman, K. M., Schwartz, H. D., & Watson, R. T. (1978).
Hypoarousal in patients with the neglect syndrome and
emotional indifference. Neurology. 28. 229-232.

253
Heilman, K. M., Watson, R. T., & Bowers, D. (1983).
Affective disorders associated with hemispheric
disease. In:K. M. Heilman (Ed.), Neuropsychology
of human emotion. New York: Guilford Press.
Heilman, K. M., Watson, R. T., & Valenstein, E. (1993).
Neglect and related disorders. In K. Heilman & E.
Valenstein (Eds.). Clinical Neuropsychology (3rd Ed).
New York: Oxford Press
Heller, W. (1990). The Neuropsychology of emotion:
Developmental patterns and implications for
psychopathology. In Psychological and Biological
Approaches to Emotion. N. L. Stein, B. Leventhal,
& T. Trebasso (Eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum:
Hillsdale, N.Y.
Heller, W. & Levy. J. (1981). Perception and expression of
emotion in right handers and left handers.
Neuropsvchologia. 19, 263-272.
Hodes, R. L., Cook, E. W., & Lang, P. J. (1985). Individual
differences in autonomic response: Conditioned
association or conditioned fear? Psychophysiology. 22.,
545-560.
Hodges, W. F. & Spielberger, C. D. (1966). The effects of
threat of shock on heart rate for subjects who differ
in manifest anxiety and fear of shock.
Psychophysiology. 2, 287-294.
House, A., Dennis, M., Warlow, C., Hawton, K., & Molyneux,
A. (1990). Mood disorders after stroke and their
relation to lesion location. Brain. 113. 1113-1129.
Izard, C. E. (1977). Human emotions. New York: Plenum Press.
Izard, C.E. (1978). The Maximally Discriminative Facial
Movement Coding System (MAX). Newark: Instructional
Resources Center, University of Delaware.
James, W. (1884). What is emotion? Mind. 9_, 188-205.
Reprinted in K. Dunlap, Psychology Classics. Vol.
1: The emotions. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins
Company, 1922.
Jensen, R. & Fuglsang-Frederiksen, A. (1994). Qualtitative
surface EMG of pericranial muscles. Relation to age
and sex in a general population.
Electroencephalography ans Clincial Neurophysiology.
93, 175-183.

254
Kent, J., Borod, J. C., Koff, E., Welkowitz, J., & Alpert,
M. (1988). Posed facial emotional expression in brain¬
damaged patients. International Journal of
Neuroscience. 43. 81-87.
Kimura, D. (1967) . Functional asymmetry of the brain in
dichotic listening. Cortex. 3, 163-178.
Kinsbourne, M., Sc Bemporad, B. (1984) . Lateralization of
emotion: A model and the evidence. In N. A. Fox & R. J.
Davidson (Eds.), The psychobiology of affective
development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kleinginna, P. R. & Kleinginna, A. M. (1981). A categorized
list of emotion definitions, with suggestions for a
consensual definition. Motivation and Emotion. 5., 348-
379.
Klorman, R., & Ryan, R. (1980). Heart rate, contingent
negative variation and evoked potentials during
anticipation of affective stimulation.
Psychophysiology. 17. 513-523.
Klorman, R., Wiesenfeld, A., Sc Austin, M. L. (1975).
Autonomic responses to affective visual stimuli.
Psychophysiology. 12, 553-560.
Klorman, R., Weissberg, R., & Weisenfeld, A. (1977).
Individual differences in fear and autonomic
reactions to affective stimulation.
Psychophysiology. 4, 45-51.
Kolb, B., & Milner, B. (1981). Observations on spontaneous
facial expression after focal cerebral excisions and
after intracarotid injection of sodium amytal.
Neuropsvchologia. 19. 505-514.
Kolb, B., & Taylor, L. (1990). Neocortical substrates of
emotional behavior. In N. Stein, B. Leventhal, Sc T.
Trabasso (Eds.). Psychological and Biological
Approaches to Emotion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lacey, J. I., & Lacey, B. C. (1958) . The relationship of
resting autonomic activity to motor impulsivity. In The
Brain and Human Behavior. Baltimore: Williams Sc
Wilkins.
Lacey, J. I. Sc Lacey, B. C. (1970). Some autonomic-central
nervous system interrelationships. In P. Black (Ed.),
Physiological correlates of emotion. New York: Academic
Press.

255
Lang, P. J. (1979). A bio-informational theory of emotional
imagery. Psychophysiology, 16. 495-512.
Lang, P. J. (1984). Cognition in emotion: concept and
action. In C. E. Izard, J. Kagan, & R. B. Zajonc
(Eds.), Emotions. Cognition, and Behavior. New
YorK: Cambridge University Press.
Lang, P. J. (1985). Cognition in emotion: concept and
action. In C. E. Izard, J. Kagan, R. B. Zajonc
(Eds.), Emotions. Cognition, and behavior.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lang, P. J., Kozak, M. J., Miller, G. A., Levin, D. N., &
McLean, A., Jr. (1980). Emotional imagery: Conceptual
structure & pattern of somato-visceral response.
Psychophysiology. 17. 179-192.
Lang, P. J., Melamad, B. G., & Hart, J. (1970). A
psychophysiological analysis of fear modification
using an automated desensitization procedure.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 76., 220-234.
Lang, P. J., Ohman, A., & Simons, R. F. (1978). The
psychophysiology of anticipation. In J. Requin
(Ed.), Attention and performance VII. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lange, C. G. (1922). The emotions: A psychophysiological
study. In K. Dunlap (Ed.), Psychological Classics, Vol.
1: The emotions. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins
Company.
Lazarus, R. S., & Averill, J. R. (1972). Emotion and
cognition: With special reference to anxiety. In
C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety: Contemporary
Theory and Research. New York: Academic Press.
LeDoux, J. E. (1989). Cognitive-emotional interactions in
the brain. Cognition and Emotion. 3, 267-289.
LeDoux, J. E. (1994). Emotion, memory and the brain.
Scientific American. 50-57.
LeDoux, J., Sakaguchi, A., & Reis, D. J. (1984). Subcortical
afferent projections of the medulla geniculate nucleus
mediate emotional responses conditioned to acoustic
stimuli. Journal of Neuroscience. 4, 683-698.
Leonard, C., Rolls, E., Wilson, A. (1985). Neurons in the
amygdala of the monkeys with responses selective for
faces. Behavioral Brain Research. 15. 159-176.

256
Levenson, R. W. , Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1990).
Voluntary facial action generates emotion-specific
autonomic nervous system activity.
Psychophysiology. 27. 363-384.
Ley, R. & Byrden, M. (1979). Hemispheric differences in
processing emotions and faces. Brain and Language. 7,
127-138.
Ley, R. & Bryden, M. (1982). A dissociation of right and
left hemispheric effects for recognizing emotional tone
and verbal content. Brain and Cognition. 1, 3-9.
Maclean, P. D. (1949). Psychosomatic disease and the
visceral brain. Recent developments bearing on the
Papez theory of emotion. Psychosomatic Medicine.
11. 338-353.
Maclean, P. D. (1952). Some psychiatric implications of
physiological studies of the frontotemporal portion of
the limbic system. Electroencephalography and Clinical
Neurophysiology. . 4., 407-418.
Mammacuri, A., Caltagirone, C., Ekman, P., Friesen, W.,
Gainotti, G. , Pizzamiglio, L, & Zoccolatti, P. (1988).
Spontaneous facial expression of emotion in brain
damaged patients. Cortex. 24. 521-533.
McCanne, T. R., & Anderson, J. A. (1987). Emotional
responding following experimental manipulation of
facial electromyographic activity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 52., 759-768.
McLaren, J., & Bryson, S. (1987). Hemispheric asymmetry in
the perception of emotional and neutral faces. Cortex,
23, 645-654.
Meadows, M. & Kaplan, R. F. (1992). Dissociation of
autonomic and subjective responses in right
hemisphere damaged patients. Presented at meeting
of International Neuropsychology Society, San
Diego.
Meadows, M. & Kaplan, R. F. (1994). Dissociation of
autonomic and subjective responses to emotional
slides in right hemisphere damaged patients.
Neuropsvchologia. 32., 847-856.
Miller, G. A., Levin, D. N., Kozak, M. J., Lang, P. J.
(1987). Individual differences in imagery and
psychophysiology of emotion. Cognition and
Emotion. 4, 367-390.

257
Moreno, C. R., Borod, J., Welkowitz, J., & Alpert, M.
(1990). Lateralization for the expression and
perception of facial emotion as a function of age.
Neuropsvchologia. 28, 191-209.
Morris, M., Bowers, D., Verfaellie, M., Blonder, L., Cimino,
C., Bauer, R. M., & Heilman, K. M. (1992). Lexical
denotation and connotation in right and left hemisphere
damaged patients. Paper presented at meeting of
International Neuropsychological Society, San Diego.
Morris, M. K., Bradley, M., Bowers, D., Lang, P. J.,
Heilman, K. M. (1991) . Valence specific
hvpoarousal following right temporal lobectomy.
Presented at the meeting of the International
Neuropsychological Society, San Antonio, TX.
Morrow, L. Vrtunski, P. B., Kim, Y., Boiler, F. (1981).
Arousal responses to emotional stimuli and laterality
of lesions. Neuropsvchologia. 19, 65-71.
Notterman, J. M., Schoenfeld, W. N., & Bersh, P. J. (1952).
Conditioned heart rate response in human beings during
experimental anxiety. Journal of Comparative and
Physiological Psychology, 45. 1-8.
OsGood, C. E. (1966). Dimensionality of the semantic space
for communication via facial expressions. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 7, 1-30.
Papez, J. W. (1937). A proposed mechanism of emotion.
Achieves of Neurology and Psychiatry. 38, 725-743.
Patrick, C. J., & Berthot, B. D. (1995). Psychophysiology.
32, 72-80.
Patrick, C. J., Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1991) Emotion
in the Criminal Psychopath: Startle Reflex Modulation.
Submitted for publication.
Perret, D., Smith, P., Potter, D., Mislin, A., Head, A.,
Milner, A. (1984). Neurons responsive to faces in the
temporal cortex: Studies of functional organization,
sensitivity to identity and relation to perception.
Human Neurobiology. 3., 197-204.
Petry, H. M. & Desiderato, O. (1978). Changes in heart rate,
muscle activity, and anxiety level following shock
threat. Psychophysiology, 15., 398-402.

258
Reiman,E. M., Fusselman, M. J., Fox, P. T., Raichle, M. E.
(1989). Neuroanatomic correlates of anticipatory
anxiety. Science. 243. 1071-1074.
Reuter-Lorenz, P. & Davidson, R. J. (1981). differential
contributions of the two cerebral hemispheres for
perception of happy and sad faces. Neuropsvchologia,
19. 609-614.
Richardson, C., Bowers, D., Eyeler, L., Heilman, K. M.
(1992). Asymmetrical control of facial emotional
expression depends on the means of elicitation.
Presented at meeting of International Neuropsychology
Society, San Diego.
Rinn, W. E. (1984). The neuropsychology of facial
expression: A review of neurological and
psychological mechanisms for producing facial
expressions. Psychological Bulletin, 95., 52-77.
Robinson, R. G., Kubos, K. L., Starr, L.B., Rao, K., Price,
T. R. (1984). Mood disorders in stroke patients.
Brain. 107.81-93.
Robinson, R. G. & Price, T. R. (1982) . Post-stroke
depressive disorders: a follow up study of 103
outpatients. Stroke. 13., 635-641.
Robinson, R. G. & Szetela, B. (1981). Mood change following
left hemisphere brain injury. Annuals of Neurology. 9,
447-453.
Ross, E. D. (1981). The aprosodias: Functional-anatomic
organization of the affective components of language in
the right hemisphere. Annals of Neurology. 38., 561-589.
Ross, E. D., & Mesulam, M. M. (1979). Dominant language
functions of the right hemisphere? Achieves of
Neurology. 36., 144-148.
Russell (1927/1961). An outline of philosophy. Cleveland:
World.
Russell, J. A. & Mehrabian, A. (1977). Evidence for a three-
factor theory of emotion, Journal of Research in
Personality. 11. 273-294.
Sacheim, H. A., Greenberg, M S., Weiman, A. L., Gur, R. C.,
Hungerbuhler, J. P. & Geschwind, N. (1982).Hemispheric
asymmetry in the expression of positive and negative
emotion: Neurologic evidence. Achieves of Neurology.
69, 379-399.

259
Sackheim, H. A. & Gur, R. C. (1978). Lateral asymmetry in
intensity of emotional expression. Neuropsvchologia.
16, 473-481. ~~~
Schacter, S. & Singer, J. E. (1962) Cognitive, social and
physiological determinants of emotional states.
Psychological Review. 69. 379-399.
Schlanger, B. B., Schlanger, Pi, & Gerstmann, L. J. (1976).
The perception of emotionally toned sentences by right -
hemisphere damaged and aphasic subjects. Brain and
Language. 3, 396-403.
Scholsberg, H. S. (1941). A scale for the judgement of
facial expressions. Journal of Experimental Psychology.
29. 497-510.
Schrant, N. J., Tranel, D., Damasio, H. (1989). The effects
of right cerebral lesions on skin conductance response
to signal stimuli. Neurology. 39. Supple. 1, 223.
Schwartz, G. E., Ahern G. L., & Brown, S. L. (1979).
Lateralized facial muscle responses to positive
and negative emotional stimuli. Psychophysiology.
16. 561-571. ' ’
Schwartz, G. E., Brown, S. L., Ahern, G. L. (1980). Facial
muscle patterning and subjective experience during
affective imagery: sex differences. Psychophysiology.
17, 75-82.
Schwartz, G. E., Davidson, R. J., & Maer, F. (1975). Right
hemisphere lateralization for emotion in the human
brain: Interactions with cognition. Science. 19. 286-
288.
Schwartz, G. E., Fair, P. L., Salt, P., Mandel, M. R.,
Klerman, G. L. (1976a). Facial muscle patterning to
affective imagery in depressed and nondepressed
subjects. Science. 192. 489-491.
Schwartz, G. E., Fair, P. L., Salt, P., Mandel, M. R., &
Klerman, G. L. (1976b). Facial expression and imagery
in depression: an electromyographic study.
Psychosomatic Medicine. 38. 337-347.
Schwartz, G. E., Weinberger, D. A. (1980). Patterns of
emotional responses to affective situations: Relations
among happiness,sadness, anger, fear, depression, and
anxiety. Motivation and Emotion. 4, 175-191.

260
Simons, R. F., Ohman, A., & Lang, P. J. (1979). Anticipation
and response set: Cortical, cardiac, and electrodermal
correlates. Psychophysiology. 16. 222-233.
Sinyor, D., Jacques, P., Kaloupek, D. G., Becker, R.,
Goldenberg, M., & Coopersmith, H. (1986).
Poststroke depression and lesion location. Brain.
109. 537-546.
Sirota, A. D., Schwartz, G. E., & Kristeller, J. L. (1987).
Facial muscle activity during induced mood states:
differential growth and carry-over of elated versus
depressed patterns. Psychophysiology. 24. 691-699.
Slomine, B. S., & Greene, A. F. (1993). Anger imagery and
corrugator electromyography. Journal of Psychosomatic
Research. 37. 671-676.
Sokolov, E. N. (1963). Perception and the conditioned
reflex. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. E. (1970) .
Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Starkstein, S. E., Robinson, R. G., & Price, T. R. (1987).
Comparison of cortical and subcortical lesions in the
production of poststroke mood disorders. Brain. 110.
1045-1059.
Suberi, M., & Mckeever, W. (1977). Differential right
hemisphere memory storage of emotional and
nonemotional faces. Neuropsvchologia. 15., 757-768.
Tassinary, L. G., Cacioppo, J. T., & Geen, T. R. (1989) . A
psychometric study of surface electrode placements for
facial electromyographic recording: The brow and cheek
muscle regions. Psychophysiology. 26. 1-16.
Terzian, H. (1964). Behavioral and EEG effects of
intracarotid sodium amytal injections. Acta
Neurochiurgica. 12. 230-240.
Tomarken, A. J., & Davidson, R. J. (1992). Fear an the face:
Differential accessibility of fear and disgust to the
face. Cited in R. J. Davidson, Parsing affective space:
Perspectives from neuropsychology and psychophysiology.
Submitted for publication.
Tomkins, S. (1962). Affect, imagery, and consciousness: The
Positive affects. Vol. 1. New York: Springer.

261
Tomkins, S. (1963). Affect, imagery, and consciousness: The
Negative affects. Vol. 2. New York: Springer.
Tranel, D. T. (1983). The effects of monetary incentive and
frustrative nonreward on heart rate and electrodermal
activi. Psychophysiology. 20, 652-657.
Tranel, D. T. & Damasio, H. (1994). Neuroanatomical
correlates of electrodermal skin conductance
responses. Psychophysiology. 31. 427-438.
Tucker, D. M. (1981) . Lateral brain function, emotion, and
conceptualization. Psychological Bulletin. 89. 19-46.
Tucker, D. M., Roth, R. S., Arneson, B. A., & Buckingham, V.
(1977). Right-hemisphere activation during stress.
Neuropsvchologia, 15., 697-700.
Tucker, D. M., Stenslie, C. E., Roth, R. S., & Shearer, S.
L. (1981). Right frontal lobe activation and right
hemisphere performance decrement during a depressed
mood. Achieves of General Psychiatry. 38. 169-174.
Tucker, D. M., Watson, R. T., & Heilman, K. M. (1977).
Affective discrimination and evocation in patients with
right parietal disease. Neurology. 27, 947-950.
Van Lancker, D., & Sidtis, J. J. (1992). The identification
of affective-prosodic stimuli by left and right
hemisphere damaged subjects: All errors are not created
equal. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research.
Vrana, S. R., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lange, P. J. (1986). Fear
imagery and text processing. Psychophysiology. 23.
247-253.
Vrana, S. R., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (1989).
Processing fearful and neutral sentences: Memory
and heart rate change. Cognition and Emotion. 3.,
179-195.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development
and validation of brief measures of positive and
negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 54. 1063-1070.
Weinberger, D. A., Schwartz, G. E. (1979). Low-anxious,
high-anxious,and repressive coping styles: psychometric
patterns and behavioral and physiological responses to
stress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88. 369-380.

262
Weddell, R. , Miller, R. , Trevarthen, C. (1990). Voluntary-
emotional facial expressions in patients with focal
cerebral lesions. Neuropsvchologia, 28, 49-60.
Weintraub, S., Mesulam,, M. M., & Kramer, L. (1981).
Disturbances in prosody. Archives of Neurology.
38. 742-744.
Wundt, W. (1896). Grundriss der Psvchologie. Translated by
C. J. Judd.
Yokoyama, K., Jennings, R., Ackles, P., Hood, P., & Boiler,
F. (1987). Lack of heart rate changes during an
attention demanding task after right hemisphere
lesions. Neurology, 37. 748-755.
York, D. J., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (1989) . Imagery
of affective sentences: Facial and visceral responses.
Psychophysiology. 26. S67.
Zoccolatti, P., Scabini, D., & Violani, C. (1982).
Electrodermal responses in patients with
unilateral brain damage. Journal of Clinical
Neuropsychology. 4, 143-150.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Beth S. Slomine was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
on November 19, 1967. She attended the University of
Delaware from 1985 to 1989, where she obtained a bachelor's
degree with a major in psychology and a minor in biology,
graduating magna cum laude. In 1989, Beth began the
doctoral program in clinical psychology at University of
Florida. After obtaining her master's degree in May, 1992,
she began working towards her doctoral degree. She is
currently completing her predoctoral internship at the
Brockton VA in Massachusetts. After obtaining her Ph.D.,
Beth will be returning to the Philadelphia area to pursue a
postdoctoral fellowhip in geropsychology at the Philadelphia
Geriatric Center.
263

I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the deqree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Dawn Bowers, Chair
Associate Professor of Clinical
and Health Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
[. Bauer, Cochair
Russell M.
Associate Prof'essor of Clinical
and Health Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Professor of Clinical and Health
Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Eileen B. Fennell
Professor of Clinical and Health
Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Margaret Bradley
Associate Scientist of Psychology

I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
CP-v.fU
P.V. Rao ^
Professor of Statistics
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of the College of Health Related Professions and to the
Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
August 1995
Dean, College of Health Related
Professions
Dean, Graduate School

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA



75
target tone indicated that nothing would occur during the 6
second interval. Autonomic measures of arousal (HR, SCR)
and facial EMG measures were obtained. The order of the
anticipatory anxiety task and the anticipatory reward tasks
was counterbalanced across subjects in each group.
Stimuli and Apparatus
The electrical stimuli was delivered by a Grass S88
Stimulator and Isolation Unit. A Zenith Data Systems AT
clone computer was programmed to deliver one high tone
(usually 800 or 1000 Hz) as a warning stimulus at 60 db for
one second. The computer also interacted with the
stimulator such that six seconds after presentation of a
specific tone, a shock was administered. The presentation
of a low tone (usually 400 or 600 HZ) was not followed by a
shock. For the reward task, the computer produced one high
and one low tone. Six seconds after the high tone, the
screen produced a message stating how many dollars or
lottery tickets the subject had won so far and a picture of
a smiling face. Six seconds after the low tone, nothing
occurred.
Stimulus presentation and data storage was controlled
by customized application software. Equipment for recording
heartbeat (HR), skin conductance rate (SCR), corrugator
electromyography (CEMG), and zygomatic electromyography
(ZEMG) included a set of Colbourn Instruments data


259
Sackheim, H. A. & Gur, R. C. (1978). Lateral asymmetry in
intensity of emotional expression. Neuropsvchologia.
16, 473-481. ~~
Schacter, S. & Singer, J. E. (1962) Cognitive, social and
physiological determinants of emotional states.
Psychological Review. 69. 379-399.
Schlanger, B. B., Schlanger, Pi, & Gerstmann, L. J. (1976).
The perception of emotionally toned sentences by right -
hemisphere damaged and aphasic subjects. Brain and
Language. 3, 396-403.
Scholsberg, H. S. (1941). A scale for the judgement of
facial expressions. Journal of Experimental Psychology.
29. 497-510. ~ ~
Schrant, N. J., Tranel, D., Damasio, H. (1989). The effects
of right cerebral lesions on skin conductance response
to signal stimuli. Neurology. 39. Supple. 1, 223.
Schwartz, G. E., Ahern G. L., & Brown, S. L. (1979).
Lateralized facial muscle responses to positive
and negative emotional stimuli. Psychophysiology.
16. 561-571.
Schwartz, G. E., Brown, S. L., Ahern, G. L. (1980). Facial
muscle patterning and subjective experience during
affective imagery: sex differences. Psychophysiology.
17, 75-82.
Schwartz, G. E., Davidson, R. J., & Maer, F. (1975). Right
hemisphere lateralization for emotion in the human
brain: Interactions with cognition. Science. 19. 286-
288.
Schwartz, G. E., Fair, P. L., Salt, P., Mandel, M. R.,
Klerman, G. L. (1976a). Facial muscle patterning to
affective imagery in depressed and nondepressed
subjects. Science. 192. 489-491.
Schwartz, G. E., Fair, P. L., Salt, P., Mandel, M. R., &
Klerman, G. L. (1976b). Facial expression and imagery
in depression: an electromyographic study.
Psychosomatic Medicine. 38. 337-347.
Schwartz, G. E., Weinberger, D. A. (1980). Patterns of
emotional responses to affective situations: Relations
among happiness,sadness, anger, fear, depression, and
anxiety. Motivation and Emotion. 4, 175-191.


CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
In this study, emotional experience was measured in
individuals with unilateral cortical strokes and individuals
who were neurologically normal. Emotional experiences were
evoked by in vivo unpleasant and pleasant anticipatory
situations. Emotional responding was measured using verbal
report, autonomic responding, and facial muscle activity.
This study is unique for several reasons. First,
attempts were made to examine emotional experience in both
negative and positive emotional situations. In other
studies, when emotional experience has been examined in
stroke patients, only unpleasant emotionally-evoking stimuli
have been used. Using both pleasant and unpleasant
situations made it possibly to explore the differences in
predicted responding based on the global right hemisphere
model of emotions and the bivalent model of emotions.
Second, in most of the other studies of emotional
experience in stroke patients, emotions have been elicited
using stimuli that require- perceptual interpretation (i.e.,
emotional slides). In this study, an in vivo elicitation of
emotion was used so that subjects did not have to make
perceptual interpretations in order to comprehend the
145


APPENDICES
A PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASURES 167
Self-Assessment Manikin 167
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule... 167
B DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 169
C STATISTICAL INFORMATION 185
REFERENCES 246
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 263
v


215
Table C-44 ANOVA Table of Percentage of SCR Responses during the
Reward Task
SS
DF
MS
F
SIG of
F
Group
1267.493
3
422.498
.4776
.6996
Subject(Group)
38042.614
43
884.712
Trial
26.397
1
26.397
. 5624
.4574
Trial by Group
261.948
3
87.316
1.8602
. 1507
Trial by
Subject(Group)
2018.371
43
46.939


207
Table C-38 T-Tests of Group Differences in Block 1 of Left-sided
Zygomatic EMG during the Shock Task
Group
Mean Diff.
DF
T-Value
P-Value
LHD, LH NCS
- 060
22
-2.264
. 0338
LHD, RHD
- 067
22
-2.091
. 0483
LHD, RH NCS
- 072
22
-2.451
. 0227
LH NCS, RHD
- 007
22
- .288
. 7763
LH NCS, RH NCS
- 012
22
- 557
. 5829
RHD, RH NCS
- 004
22
- 164
. 8713


154
Facial electromyography
Similar to the shock condition, none of the facial
muscle sites, ipsilateral corrugator and bilateral
zygomatic, differentiated between the reward and control
trials. The possible reasons for the lack of findings
during the reward task are the same possibly explanations
for the lack of findings during the shock task; age and
gender. These reasons that age and gender possibly
contributed to the lack of significant results are discussed
above.
Verbal report ratinas
Subjects also reported more pleasantness, arousal, and
greater feelings of control during the reward anticipation
than the reward-control. Similar to the shock situation,
this illustrates that the subjects are able to perceive the
emotional tone of the situation accurately.
Additionally, in Experiment 2, subjects reported more
positive affect, and more pleasantness during the reward
compared to the control trials. There were no differences
in reported negative affect, arousal, and dominance. These
results reveal that subjects perceive the reward situation
as more positive and pleasant than the control trials.
The negative findings of the arousal and dominance
rating in Experiment 2 suggest that subjects were not as
emotionally aroused or as in control during the reward
condition in the second experiment compared the no-reward


152
quickly as possible, following the presentation of the tone
to insure that the slide would be presented for a full 5
seconds. The other group was told to just pay attention to
the tones and the slides. The subjects who were given a
response-set to react to had larger overall responses and
greater deceleration than the group that did not have to
react to the tone. Although the subjects were not asked to
rate their emotional experience, the high interest slides
are likely to be somewhat comparable to the anticipation of
reward in the present study. In both studies, subjects are
anticipating something with positive rather than negative or
neutral valence.
Skin conductance responding
Unexpectedly subjects had greater responding during the
reward-control trials compared to the reward trials. The
meaning of this finding is unclear. One possible
explanation is that subjects experienced the no-reward
trials as "frustrative nonreward." Fowles (1988) and Tranel
(1983) conceptualized the electrodermal system as an anxiety
system that is influenced by punishment or frustrative
nonreward. Since the subjects in this experiment are
expecting to obtain dollars or lottery tickets as part of
this task, the no-reward condition in the reward task may be
experienced by the subjects as a frustrative non-reward
situation. Specifically, perhaps the higher SCRs during the
no-reward trials is related to subject's feeling


123
variables. The new variables were calculated by subtracting
the mean control rating from the mean stimulus rating within
each task. Each variable was analyzed using Wilcoxon Tests
for paired samples to explore differences in ratings by
condition and Kruskal-Wallis Tests to examine group
differences.
For all three variables there was a significant
difference between the shock and reward tasks. The mean
valence ratings [Z = -5.69, P < .0001] revealed that
subjects rated the shock and reward tasks significantly
differently. Examination of the means indicated that
subjects reported feeling less pleasant during the
shock than the control trials (mean=1.99, sd=1.30) and more
pleasant during the reward than compared to the reward
control trials (mean=-1.65, sd= 1.41).
Exploration of the means for the arousal ratings
revealed that subjects reported greater arousal during the
shock and reward conditions compared to their respective
control conditions (shock mean=-1.34, sd=1.25; reward mean=-
.344, sd=.923). The difference was significantly greater,
however, between the shock and shock-control compared to the
reward and reward-control [Z = -4.16, P < .0001].
The dominance ratings indicated that subjects reported
feeling less in control during the shock than the no-shock
trials (mean=-.583, sd=.947) and more in control during the


58
receive monetary reward (i.e., dollar bills or lottery
tickets).
The specific objectives of this study are to determine:
(a) whether patients with RHD or LHD become autonomically
aroused in these in vivo emotional situations (as indexed by
HR and SCR changes); (b) whether they display contraction of
facial muscles (as measured by EMG indices) that correspond
to the positive-negative nature of the emotional situation;
and (c) whether they explicitly report subjective changes in
their emotional experiences (as measured by their responses
to questionnaires).
According to the global right hemisphere emotion model,
the RHD patients should display attenuated responsivity
across all three response domains (arousal, facial, verbal
report) in both the negative and positive emotion-eliciting
situations. In other words, relative to the LHD group, the
RHD patients should be less autonomically aroused, show
minimal facial muscle contractions, and report less intense
changes in their subjective experience of emotion.
Diminished responding by RHD patients would be observed in
both the anticipatory anxiety paradigm, as well as the
anticipatory reward task.
According to the bivalent hemisphere emotion model, the
responses of the RHD and LHD patients would vary as a
function of the positive-negative nature of the induced
emotional situation. Specifically, the RHD group would show


35
and readiness to act which are left hemisphere attributes.
Specifically, passivity and involvement in perceptual
judgement relates to RH activation, whe