The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The right-hemisphere and valence hypotheses: could they both be right (and sometimes left)?
Open accessAbstract
The two halves of the brain are believed to play different roles in emotional processing, but the specific contribution of each hemisphere continues to be debated. The right-hemisphere hypothesis suggests that the right cerebrum is dominant for processing all emotions regardless of affective valence, whereas the valence specific hypothesis posits that the left hemisphere is specialized for processing positive affect while the right hemisphere is specialized for negative affect. Here, healthy participants viewed two split visual-field facial affect perception tasks during functional magnetic resonance imaging, one presenting chimeric happy faces (i.e. half happy/half neutral) and the other presenting identical sad chimera (i.e. half sad/half neutral), each masked immediately by a neutral face. Results suggest that the posterior right hemisphere is generically activated during non-conscious emotional face perception regardless of affective valence, although greater activation is produced by negative facial cues. The posterior left hemisphere was generally less activated by emotional faces, but also appeared to recruit bilateral anterior brain regions in a valence-specific manner. Findings suggest simultaneous operation of aspects of both hypotheses, suggesting that these two rival theories may not actually be in opposition, but may instead reflect different facets of a complex distributed emotion processing system.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Whalen, P. J., Rauch, S. L., Etcoff, N. L., McInerney, S. C., Lee, M. B., & Jenike, M. A. (1998) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.18-01-00411.1998 · Cited by 2,205
Cited by
Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right- and left-handers.
Casasanto, D. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0015854 · Cited by 871
Brain Lateralization: A Comparative Perspective
Güntürkün, O., Ströckens, F., & Ocklenburg, S. (2020) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00006.2019 · Cited by 484
Localization of pain-related brain activation: A meta-analysis of neuroimaging data
Duerden, E. G., & Albanese, M. (2013) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.21416 · Cited by 342
EEG mu component responses to viewing emotional faces
Moore, A., Gorodnitsky, I., & Pineda, J. (2012) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.07.048 · Cited by 114
Cha, J., Fekete, T., Siciliano, F., Biezonski, D., Greenhill, L., Pliszka, S. R., Blader, J. C., Krain Roy, A., Leibenluft, E., & Posner, J. (2015) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/npp.2015.18 · Cited by 75
Metadata
- Authors
- Killgore, W. D. S., & Yurgelun-Todd, D. A.
- Venue
- Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2007-06-12
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 240-250
- ISSN
- 1749-5016 (ISSN-L)
- 1749-5024
- OpenAlex
- W2149707739
- Cited by
- 230
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The right-hemisphere and valence hypotheses: could they both be right (and sometimes left)? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/scan/nsm020
- The paper
- Killgore, W. D. S., & Yurgelun-Todd, D. A. (2007). The right-hemisphere and valence hypotheses: could they both be right (and sometimes left)? Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsm020
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.