Such mechanisms may predict the probable aversive consequences to the observed event in a manner comparable with mirror-system involvement in predicting action outcomes. This implies that mechanisms exist that support recognition of others’ pain without necessarily instigating complex emotional states such as compassion. Second, in everyday life, we are able to recognize others’ injuries as being of a painful nature, even if our emotional reaction is minimal or nonexistent. It has been proposed that pain recognition and empathy similarly rely on such other-to-self translations in the emotional or motivational-affective dimension of pain processing (Gallese 2003 Morrison et al. First, the neural mechanisms underlying pain recognition may be functionally similar to those supporting action recognition in lateral premotor areas, with observation eliciting ‘‘mirror’’ responses in regions of the brain closely colocalized and functionally allied with those involved in first-person action representation (Rizzolatti et al. The premotor properties of midcingulate areas, then, may be quite important in pain observation for several reasons. 2004, forthcoming Amodio and Frith 2006). An intriguing possibility is that these medial areas may contribute to the recognition of others’ distress partly through engaging appropriate movements of avoidance during pain observation (Morrison et al. 2006), it may also be central to pain observation.
HAMMERSPOON PRESS KEY TV
Because skeletomotor movement representation is a crucial component of the motivational- affective representation of pain itself (Sewards TV and Sewards MA 2002 Vogt et al. 1991 Morecraft and van Hoesen 1997 Russo et al. 2000) but also play established roles in premotor processing and the selection and organization of movements (Matelli et al. motor areas (SMA and pre-SMA), which are not only involved in the processing of acute pain (e.g., Peyron et al. To determine further the degree of significance of the BOLD response pattern within the ROIs identified by the 3-way interaction contrast in the whole brain, regression parameter estimates (beta values) from the fMRI data were analyzed using 2 3 2 3 2 repeated-measures ANOVAs for the factors response (button press or non-button press), noxiousness (noxious or innocuous), and contact (hit or miss). Figure 3 shows the activation profiles of these 3 ROIs. The PCC activation fell on the cingulate gyrus inferior to the boundary between SMA and primary motor cortex (MI). The MCC activation fell on the cingulate gyrus and extended into the sulcus bordering SMA. The dACC activation fell within the region in BA32 bordering pre-SMA and the middle frontal gyrus. 2 see Supplementary Table 3 for activations at P < 0.005 and Supplementary Fig. No other regions were activated in the whole brain at the applied threshold (Fig. These were in dACC ( x, y, z = 0, 26, 31, max t value 6.29), MCC ( x, y, z = 3, – 12, 38, max t value 5.74), and dorsal posterior cingulate cortex (PCC x, y, z = 0, – 25, 35, max t value 5.25). Three activation foci were revealed by the whole-brain 3-way interaction contrast (Fig.
See Supplementary Table 2 for peak activations for all simple effects. In non-button-press conditions, activations were observed in right superior temporal suclus (54, – 55, 7, max t value 6.2 47, – 52, – 9, max t value 4.75), MCC/SMA (1, – 1, 42, max t value 5.13 – 3, 21, 58, max t value 4.62), dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC – 1, 21, 25, max t value 4.13), left postcentral gyrus ( – 53, – 25, 26, max t value 5.03), right anterior insula/IFG (47, 29, 9, max t value 4.89), putamen (14, 3 15 max t value 4.44), and right precentral gyrus (57, 6, 15, max t value 4.07). In button-press conditions, this contrast revealed a peak activation in MCC (0, 2, 33, max t value 3.25). The simple effects of noxiousness were examined by comparing noxious with innocuous activations within button-press and non-button-press conditions separately. significant activations for the main effect of contact were seen at the applied threshold.
0 kommentar(er)
