Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.
Neuroimage. 2012 Jan 16;59(2):1912-23. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.102. Epub 2011 Sep 13.
How does threat processing impact cognitive performance? To investigate this question, in the present functional magnetic resonance imaging study, participants performed a response-conflict task (neutral, congruent, and incongruent trials) that followed a variable-length shock anticipation period or a corresponding delay during which they would not be shocked. The delay period was cued by a geometric-shaped stimulus indicating whether the subject was in the safe (no shock) or threat (potential shock) condition. Behaviorally, participants showed increased reaction time interference (incongruent-neutral) during threat trials, an effect that increased as a function of state anxiety level across participants. Brain imaging data were analyzed for the cue and the subsequent target phase of the task. At the target phase, the left anterior insula exhibited interaction-type responses (i.e., increased interference during threat trials) that were positively associated with state anxiety level - a relationship that paralleled the behavioral pattern. At the cue phase, greater responses to threat vs. safe were observed in a circuit of regions, including the medial PFC, anterior insula, thalamus, and bed nucleus of the stria terminalis/caudate, which we interpreted as engaged by shock monitoring/anticipation processes. In contrast, intriguingly, greater responses to safe vs. threat at the cue phase were observed in a broader set of regions that overlapped with the "resting-state" network. Finally, a standard statistical mediation analysis revealed that the relationship between state anxiety scores and interference-related responses in the left anterior insula during the target phase was partially mediated via cue responses in the medial PFC, consistent with the idea that more anxious individuals had difficulty in engaging the medial PFC during the threat condition. Taken together, our findings suggest that threat monitoring impairs the upcoming resolution of interference. Furthermore, a confluence of effects of cognitive task condition, threat, and individual differences in state anxiety was observed in the anterior insula, a structure that is suggested to be particularly important for the interaction between emotion and cognition.
威胁处理如何影响认知表现?为了研究这个问题,在本项功能磁共振成像研究中,参与者执行了一项反应冲突任务(中性、一致和不一致试验),该任务之后是一个可变长度的冲击预期期,或在此期间他们不会受到冲击的相应延迟期。延迟期由指示主体处于安全(无冲击)或威胁(潜在冲击)状态的几何形状刺激来提示。行为上,参与者在威胁试验中表现出增加的反应时干扰(不一致-中性),这种效应随着参与者的状态焦虑水平的增加而增加。对任务的提示和随后的目标阶段进行了脑成像数据分析。在目标阶段,左侧前岛叶表现出交互型反应(即,在威胁试验中干扰增加),这种反应与状态焦虑水平呈正相关——这种关系与行为模式相似。在提示阶段,与安全相比,观察到对威胁的反应更大,在包括内侧前额叶皮层、前岛叶、丘脑和终纹床核的纹状体/尾状核的区域回路中观察到这种反应,我们将其解释为参与冲击监测/预期过程。相比之下,令人好奇的是,在提示阶段,与安全相比,在更广泛的区域中观察到对威胁的反应更大,这些区域与“静息状态”网络重叠。最后,标准的统计中介分析表明,在目标阶段,左侧前岛叶的状态焦虑评分与干扰相关反应之间的关系部分通过内侧前额叶皮层的提示反应来介导,这与更焦虑的个体在威胁条件下难以参与内侧前额叶皮层的想法一致。总之,我们的发现表明,威胁监测会损害即将到来的干扰解决。此外,在前岛叶中观察到认知任务条件、威胁和状态焦虑个体差异的影响的融合,该结构被认为对情绪和认知之间的相互作用特别重要。