A critical role for "affective neuroscience" in resolving what is basic about basic emotions.

Ortony and Turner (1990) asked "What's Basic About Basic Emotions," and they concluded "very little." They proceeded to advocate a "componential" or "mosaic" view of how emotional systems should be analyzed. Their thesis was flawed by their failure to consider the available neurobehavioral data. Genetically dictated brain systems that mediate affective-emotional processes do exist, even though there are bound to be semantic ambiguities in how we speak about these systems. This commentary summarizes key lines of evidence for coherently operating emotional systems in the brain and advocates the position that the issue of basic emotions can no longer be credibly discussed without adequate consideration of the relevant brain research in the area. The type of conceptual, logical analysis pursued by Ortony and Turner, in the absence of a thorough analysis of the available neurological data, is not an adequate basis for resolving what is basic about basic emotions.     

An inexpensive electro-fistular swivel for negative feedback control of self-stimulation

A swivel was developed for concurrent intraorganismic fluid injection and intracranial electrical stimulation of the unrestrained rat. Effects of various intragastric injections on bar-pressing maintained by electrical stimulation of the hypothalamus were studied. In some subjects, intragastric injections of either water or milk decreased the rate of responding. This decrease resulted from pauses in responding rather than from decreases in the local rates of responding. The decrement in responding occurred at a lower gastric volume during milk injection than during water injection. In other subjects, however, neither water, milk, nor 32% sucrose injections affected the rate of self-stimulation.     

Interaction of genetics and separation in canine hyperkinesis and in differential responses to amphetamine

A model of childhood hyperkinesis, using the Telomian-beagle hybrid dog, is described, demonstrating the interactions of genetics and separation in the development of this syndrome and in the favorable responses of some of these dogs to amphetamine. This work represents the collaboration of three laboratories, utilizing chiefly methods of inhibitory training. Inducing separation distress enhanced the resistance to inhibitory training and the favorable responses to amphetamine.     

Why does separation distress hurt? Comment on MacDonald and Leary (2005)

Evidence is substantial that separation-distress circuitry in animal models is related intimately to opioid-sensitive pain regulatory systems of the brain. The evidence that basic pain-affect mechanisms are integral to the feelings of defensive fear anxiety and aggression is modest. Although anger and anxiety can be reduced by opiates, the effects are not as robust and specific as those observed with the low doses that quell separation distress. The role of "social pain" may be larger for the affective underpinnings of jealousy, shame, and guilt (all variants of social exclusion and abandonment) than for fear and aggression. Interdisciplinary insights might be facilitated by more forthright analyses of how affective states are created within the brain. This will require better dialogue between behavioral neuroscientists and the rest of psychology interested in foundational psychoevolutionary issues.     

Can anthropomorphic analyses of separation cries in other animals inform us about the emotional nature of social loss in humans? Comment on Blumberg and Sokoloff (2001)

M. S. Blumberg and G. Sokoloff's (2001) critical analysis has raised doubt whether emotional feelings can be studied in nonhuman animals, and they have reaffirmed the inappropriateness of anthropomorphic reasoning in animal research. They argue that the ultrasonic distress calls of infant rats may be little more than acoustic by-products of bodily adjustments to physiological stressors. This author argues that comparable vocalizations in other species do index separation distress. Considering that there may be deep homologies in the neural systems that govern such emotional processes in many mammalian species, anthropomorphic-zoomorphic reasoning may be a viable cross-species research strategy as long as it is limited to neuroscientific contexts that lead to testable predictions in humans and other animals.     

What is an emotional feeling? Lessons about affective origins from cross-species neuroscience

Cross-species affective neuroscience aspires to provide an evidence-based foundation for understanding the primary-process emotional networks that concurrently control instinctual emotional actions and affective feelings—direct emotional circuit mediated ‘rewards’ and ‘punishments’. In humans and other mammals, the ancestral subcortical regions of the brain are central to such affective BrainMind functions (a monistic term, here used synonymously with MindBrain, depending on stylistic needs). Although these circuits cannot be ‘identical’ across species (that would be incompatible with evolutionary principles) they are sufficiently similar, anatomically, neurochemically and functionally, to allow animal brain research to illuminate (yield testable predictions) about homologous human mind functions. Primal emotional feelings (affects) are inbuilt value functions of the brain that energize and inform the rest of the mental apparatus about basic survival values, thereby promoting secondary-process learning/memory functions and tertiary-process cognitive thinking-ruminative functions, yielding bottom-up evolutionary controls that ultimately allow top-down regulatory controls. As we envision how such “nested” hierarchies—two-way paths of causality—reflecting both bottom-up and top-down functions—we will need disciplined distinctions between cognitions and emotions at the primary-process level, while also accepting total interpenetrance of cognitions and affects at the tertiary-process level of MindBrain organization. This allows full and synergistic integration of basic and dimensional approaches to emotions. Here the primal emotional networks, so critically important for understanding ‘human-nature’ and psychiatric disorders, are discussed didactically in ways that can minimize dilemmas that non-evolutionary, non-hierarchical perspectives are subject to in modern emotion research.     

Rough‐and‐tumble play in human children

Rough and tumble (R&T) play is a unique set of behaviors that can be reliably distinguished from aggression and other childhood activities. Although it may be the most fundamental form of play, it has received comparatively little experimental attention in the human species. Forty children, ages three to six, were allowed to play in pairs (10 male pairs, 10 female pairs) during a 30 minute videotaped session with no toys available while music played in the background during every other five‐minute time period. The incidence frequency of children's play and related behavioral activities were scored using 20 behavioral categories. The major findings show only modest gender differences in the frequency of play behaviors in such controlled social encounters; the main difference is that boys engaged in slightly more physical play solicitations than girls. Music facilitated General Motor Activities (e.g., Running and Walking behaviors), but not specific R&T play actions (e.g., Wrestling, Ventral and Dorsal contacts). Finally, most play behaviors as well as general activities declined systematically over the course of each recording session. This experiment highlights how human social play can be systematically studied in a controlled laboratory setting. Aggr. Behav. 29:539–551, 2003. © 2003 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Primal emotional-affective expressive foundations of human facial expression

Emotional facial expressions provide important insights into various valenced feelings of humans. Recent cross-species neuroscientific advances offer insights into molecular foundations of mammalian affects and hence, by inference, the related emotional/affective facial expressions in humans. This is premised on deep homologies based on affective neuroscience studies of valenced primary emotional systems across species. Thus, emerging theoretical perspectives suggest that ancient cross-species emotional systems are intimately linked not only to emotional action patterns evident in all mammals, but also, by inference, distinct emotional facial expressions studied intensively in humans. Thus, the goal of the present theoretical work was to relate categories of human emotional facial expressions—e.g. especially of anger fear, joy and sadness—to respective underlying primary cross-mammalian emotional circuits. This can potentially provide coherent theoretical frameworks for the eventual molecular study of emotional facial expressions in humans.     

Spanish validation of the Affective Neuroscience Personality Scales

The Affective Neuroscience Personality Scales have been designed to provide a personality assessment tool based on six distinct affective systems. The six neural systems involved were labeled PLAY, SEEK, CARE, FEAR, ANGER and SADNESS. Spirituality has been integrated into the questionnaire as a seventh dimension because, in opinion of Panksepp and his colleagues is one of the most interesting human emotion. The aim of the present paper was introduce the validation of the Spanish version of Affective Neuroscience Personality Scales and their first psychometric results in a sample of 411 college students. Participants completed the Spanish version of ANPS, just as a personality scale of five factors (NEO-FFI-R), and the Scales of Positive and Negative Affect (PANAS). The factor structure obtained and psychometric properties of the scales indicate that the Spanish version of the scales provides an effective tool to measure the seven dimensions of personality proposal in the original questionnaire.