Cited by 206Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Levels of appraisal: a medial prefrontal role in high-level appraisal of emotional material.

Open access
Kalisch, Raffael, Wiech, Katja, Critchley, Hugo D., Dolan, Raymond J.·2006·NeuroImage

Abstract

Appraisal refers to the evaluation of the meaning of emotional stimuli and is considered causal in the generation of an emotional response. Cognitive neuroscience has paid little attention to a theoretical distinction between low-level appraisal, considered to be automatic and preattentive, and high-level appraisal that requires attentional and working memory resources. To disentangle low-level from high-level appraisal, we varied cognitive load in a concurrent, unrelated working memory task, while anxiety was induced through anticipation of impending pain. Confirming theoretical predictions, we show that anxiety-related activity in dorsal medial prefrontal/rostral anterior cingulate cortex (dorsal MPFC/ACC) is attenuated under high, relative to low, cognitive load. Lateral prefrontal regions previously implicated in reappraisal and cognitive emotion regulation show a similar interaction between anxiety and cognitive load. Critically, there were no changes in physiological and subjective measures of low-level appraisal outcome and emotional response generation as a function of load, allowing us to conclude that MPFC/ACC and lateral PFC activity during anticipatory anxiety reflects high-level appraisal. Our data provide neurobiological evidence for a distinction between low-level and high-level appraisal mechanisms.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.11.011

Cites

83 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Emotional processes need to model the organism as an entity with goals realized or frustrated in action.

    “they need to model the organism as an entity with goals realized or frustrated in action (including internal regulatory action)”

    From Pain Asymbolia as Depersonalization for Pain Experience. An Interoceptive Active Inference Account (2020) · cites this paper as Kalisch et al., 2006

    The Introduction discusses appraisal of emotional material, including reward and punishment expectations, and the Discussion mentions motivational relevance and evaluation of actions. Neither section says that emotional processes must model an organism as an entity whose goals are realized or frustrated through action, including internal regulatory action. Searches for those concepts found no passage establishing the attributed point; page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 84 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Ashburner, J., Friston, K., Penny, W., 2004. Imaging neuroscience-Theory and analysis. In: Frackowiak, R.S.J., Friston, K., Frith, C.D., Dolan, R.J., Price, C.J., Zeki, S., Ashburner, J., Penny, W. (Eds.), Human Brian Function, 2nd edR Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 599 -1104.
  2. Dayan, P., Abbott, L.F., 2001. Classical Conditioning and Reinforcement Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 331 -358.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kalisch, R., Wiech, K., Critchley, H. D., & Dolan, R. J.
Affiliations
UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology (GB)
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-05
Volume
30
Issue
4
Pages
1458-1466
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2079207266
Cited by
206
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 11
FWCI
7.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
emotional appraisal, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, rostral anterior cingulate cortex, cognitive load, anticipatory anxiety, pain anticipation, working memory, lateral prefrontal cortex, cognitive emotion regulation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Anxiety, Arousal, Attention, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Emotions, Female, Gyrus Cinguli, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Functional Laterality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Middle Aged, Nerve Net, Pain, Psychomotor Performance, Serial Learning, Prefrontal Cortex, Imaging, Three-Dimensional

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review