Panksepp Jaak, Lane Richard D, Solms Mark, Smith Ryan
Department of Integrative Physiology and Neuroscience, College of Veterinary Medicine, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA.
Department of Psychiatry, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2017 May;76(Pt B):187-215. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.09.010. Epub 2016 Sep 15.
The "affective" and "cognitive" neuroscience approaches to understanding emotion (AN and CN, respectively) represent potentially synergistic, but as yet unreconciled, theoretical perspectives, which may in part stem from the methods that these distinct perspectives routinely employ-one focusing on animal brain emotional systems (AN) and one on diverse human experimental approaches (CN). Here we present an exchange in which each approach (1) describes its own theoretical perspective, (2) offers a critique of the other perspective, and then (3) responds to each other's critique. We end with a summary of points of agreement and disagreement, and describe possible future experiments that could help resolve the remaining controversies. Future work should (i) further characterize the structure/function of subcortical circuitry with respect to its role in generating emotion, and (ii) further investigate whether sub-neocortical activations alone are sufficient (as opposed to merely necessary) for affective experiences, or whether subsequent cortical representation of an emotional response is also required.
理解情绪的“情感”和“认知”神经科学方法(分别为AN和CN)代表了两种可能相互协同但尚未调和的理论观点,这可能部分源于这些不同观点通常采用的方法——一种侧重于动物大脑的情绪系统(AN),另一种侧重于多样的人类实验方法(CN)。在此,我们呈现一场交流,其中每种方法(1)描述自身的理论观点,(2)对另一种观点提出批评,然后(3)回应对方的批评。我们以对共识点和分歧点的总结作为结尾,并描述可能有助于解决剩余争议的未来实验。未来的工作应该(i)进一步阐明皮层下神经回路在产生情绪方面的结构/功能,以及(ii)进一步研究单独的皮层下激活对于情感体验是否足够(与仅仅是必要相对),或者是否还需要随后对情绪反应的皮层表征。