← Explore

The Right Lateral Frontal Cortex Processes Features of Emotional Faces as a Function of Their Likelihood of Occurrence

André Forster, Johannes Hewig, John JB Allen, Johannes Rodrigues, Philipp Ziebell, Joseph Sanguinetti

2021 · 10.31234/osf.io/gr42f

human healthyhealthyeeg megbehaviour

Abstract

The lateral frontal Cortex serves an important integrative function for converging information from a number of neural networks. It thus provides context and direction to both stimulus processing and accompanying responses. Especially in emotion related processing, the right hemisphere has often been described to serve a special role including a special sensitivity to stochastic learning and model building. In this study, the right inferior frontal gyrus (riFG) of 41 healthy participants was targeted via ultrasound neuromodulation to shed light on the involvement of this area in the representation of probabilistic context information and the processing of currently presented emotional faces. Analyses reveal that the riFG does not directly contribute to processing of currently depicted emotional stimuli but provides for information about the estimated likelihood of occurrence of stimulus features.

Abstract via europepmc.

Specieshuman
Subjects41 participants
Sessions per subject1
Randomisedyes
Blindingdouble
Sham / controlinactive transducer
Auditory controlnot reported
Readout timingoffline
Anaesthesianot applicable
Readoutseeg meg, behaviour — EEG alpha and theta power at F8, frontal alpha asymmetry, reaction times in an emotional-faces internal shift task; BDI-V
Direction of effectmixed or unclearlitFUS to the right IFG altered the F8 alpha response in interaction with stimulus likelihood and attention focus; the overall alpha effect was negative in the full model but positive in a litFUS-only model.
Adverse eventsnot reported

Exposures

Exposure 1: litFUS to right IFG at F8

Target: inferior frontal gyrus — “right inferior frontal gyrus (riFG)”
Device: other named manufacturer · Thync ✓

Pulse timing
Waveformpulsed
Fundamental frequency (kHz)500✓✓✓
Pulse duration (ms)not reportedimplied by duty cycle ÷ PRF: 0.125 ms (not stated by the paper)⚑
Pulse repetition frequency (Hz)40✓✓✓
Duty cycle (%)0.5✓✓✓
Sonication duration (s)120✓✓✓
Pressure and intensity, by domain
Free-field pressure (kPa)not reported
Free-field Isppa (W/cm²)not reported
Free-field Ispta (W/cm²)not reported
In-situ estimatenot reported
In-situ pressure (kPa)not reported
In-situ Isppa (W/cm²)not reported
In-situ Ispta (W/cm²)not reported
Ispta, domain unspecified (W/cm²)0.199✓✓✓⚑
Protocol, in the paper’s words

Single 120 s sonication at the F8 position before the EEG task, once per session (litFUS in one session, sham in the other, seven days apart); no intervals or trains described.

Flags from extraction

  • exposures[0].unspecified_domain.ispta_w_cm2 — Ispta of 199 mW/cm2 given without stating domain; converted to 0.199 W/cm2.
  • exposures[0].timing.pulse_duration_ms — Pulse duration not stated; duty cycle and PRF given only.
  • sham_type — Sham: transducer pointed away from head, but the paper says ultrasound was emitted either way; classified as aimed away.
  • exposures[0].device.family — Maker named only as the 'manufactured device (Thync)'; transducer maker not separately stated.
  • n_subjects — Abstract says 41 participants; mixed models analysed 37 individuals.