| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Psychiatric Bulletin | Advances in Psychiatric Treatment | All RCPsych Journals |
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Section of Brain Maturation, Institute of Psychiatry, London
Section of Neuroscience and Emotion, Institute of Psychiatry, London
Department of Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, London
Division of Mental Health, St George’s University of London
Oxleas National Health Services (NHS) Trust, Kent
Section of Brain Maturation, Institute of Psychiatry, London
Centre for Neuroimaging Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, London
South London and Maudsley NHS Trust, London
South London and Maudsley NHS Trust and Forensic Mental Health Science, Institute of Psychiatry, London
Section of Neuroscience and Emotion, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK and Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
Section of Brain Maturation, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK
Correspondence: Dr Declan Murphy, Section of Brain Maturation, Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, UK. Email: D.Murphy{at}iop.kcl.ac.uk
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Aims Toinvestigate brain functionwhen individuals with psychopathy and a control group process facial emotion.
Method Using event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging we
compared six people scoring 
25 on the Hare Psychopathy
Checklist–Revised and nine non-psychopathic healthy volunteers during an
implicit emotion processing task using fearful, happy and neutral faces.
Results The psychopathy group showed significantly less activation than the control group in fusiform and extrastriate cortices when processing both facial emotions. However, emotion type affected response pattern. Both groups increased fusiform and extrastriate cortex activation when processing happy faces compared with neutral faces, butthis increase was significantly smaller in the psychopathy group. In contrast, when processing fearful faces compared with neutral faces, the control group showed increased activation but the psychopathy group decreased activation in the fusiform gyrus.
Conclusions People with psychopathy have biological differences from controls when processing facial emotion, and the pattern of response differs according to emotion type.
|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
People with psychopathy show evidence of both cognitive and emotional dysfunction, which may contribute to their behaviour (Tunstall et al, 2003). For example, adults with psychopathy and children with psychopathic traits have selective impairments in recognising distress cues (e.g. facial and vocal expressions of fear and sadness), but show normal recognition of other facial and vocal expressions of emotions such as happiness (Blair et al, 2001a, 2002; Stevens et al, 2001). Also, people with psychopathy show reduced autonomic responsiveness to facial expressions of fear and sadness, but normal responses to other expressions of primary emotion, such as happy faces (Blair et al, 1997). Thus, it has been proposed that in psychopathy individuals do not process facial and other signals of distress as aversive, and this in turn leads to lack of empathy, failure to inhibit behaviour that engenders distress in others, and impaired moral socialisation (Blair, 1995, 2003). However, nobody has directly examined brain function when psychopathic individuals implicitly (unconsciously) process facial emotion. We previously reported that in healthy populations limbic and visual cortical regions are activated during facial emotion processing tasks (Surguladze et al, 2003). To test the theory that people with psychopathy have a selective impairment in processing distress cues, we used event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to examine neural responses when people with psychopathy and a control group viewed expressions of distress (fearful faces) and expressions of positive emotion (happy faces). We tested the main hypothesis that compared with controls, the psychopathy group would show reduced activation in limbic and visual cortical regions involved in processing fearful faces, but no differences when processing happy faces.
|
|
METHOD |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Functional neuroimaging task
Each volunteer participated in two 6 min experiments employing
event-related fMRI. Participants were presented with facial expressions of
happiness in one experiment and fear in the other experiment, at two
intensities (low and prototypic) and also with neutral expressions, from a
standardised series of prototypical facial expressions posed by ten different
volunteers (Young et al,
2002; Surguladze et
al, 2003). In each experiment, all stimuli were presented in
a pseudo-randomised order while avoiding successive presentation of
expressions of the same emotional intensity. Each stimulus type (i.e.
intensity of expression regardless of face identity) was preceded by similar
numbers of each of the other two stimulus types, to minimise the effect of the
preceding stimulus type upon neural responses to the stimulus of interest. In
summary, there were ten faces with three levels of intensity, each of which
was presented twice to give a total of 60 stimuli per experiment. The duration
of the interstimulus interval varied from 3 s to 8 s according to a Poisson
distribution to prevent participants predicting the timing of the next
stimulus presentation, with an average interval length of 4.9 s. During the
interstimulus interval participants viewed a fixation cross. In subsequent
analyses the fixation cross was used as the baseline stimulus in each of the
experiments.
Participants were requested to decide upon the gender of each face and to press one of two buttons accordingly with the right thumb; for a full description of the experimental design and stimulus parameters, see Surguladze et al (2003). In pre-scan testing all participants were able to identify the gender of the faces correctly.
Image acquisition
Magnetic resonance images were acquired using a GE Signa 1.5 T system
(General Electric, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA) with an operating console and
software (Advanced Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, Woburn, Massachusetts, USA) for
gradient echo echoplanar imaging (EPI) at the Maudsley Hospital, London. A
quadrature birdcage headcoil was used for radio frequency transmission and
reception. An inversion recovery EPI data-set was acquired at 43 near-axial 3
mm thick planes parallel to the anterior–posterior commissural line:
time to echo (TE) 73 ms, time to inversion (TI) 180 ms, time to recovery (TR)
16 s, in-plane resolution 1.72 mm, interslice gap 0.3 mm, matrix size 128
x128 pixels. This higher-resolution EPI data-set provided whole brain
coverage and was later used to register the fMRI data-sets acquired from each
individual in standard stereotactic space. In total 180
T2-weighted images depicting blood oxygen level dependent
(BOLD) contrast were acquired at each of 16 near-axial noncontiguous 7 mm
thick planes parallel to the intercommissural line: TE 40 ms, TR 2 s, in-plane
resolution 3.44 mm, interslice gap 0.7 mm, matrix size 64x64 pixels.
Neuroimaging data analysis
Individual brain activation maps
Data were analysed with software developed at the Institute of Psychiatry,
London, using a non-parametric approach (for a full description and
references, see
http://www.brainmap.it).
Experimental responses were analysed by convolving each contrast of
interest–neutral and emotional expressions v. baseline (the
fixation cross) and prototypic emotional v. neutral – with two
gamma variate functions (peak responses at 4 s and 8 s). The best fit between
the weighted sum of these convolutions and the time series at each voxel was
computed using the constrained BOLD effect model of Friman et al
(2003). Following computation
of the model fit, a goodness-of-fit statistic was computed: this consisted of
the ratio of the sum of squares of deviations from the mean image intensity
(over the whole time series) due to the model to the sum of squares of
deviations due to the residuals (SSQ ratio). Following computation of the
observed SSQ ratio at each voxel, the data were permuted by the wavelet-based
method (Bullmore et al,
2001), from which activation of voxels and clusters can be
detected at any desired type 1 error rate
(Bullmore et al,
1999).
Within-group comparisons of experimental responses to each contrast of interest (neutral and emotional responses v. baseline, and emotional expressions v. neutral) were then computed separately for the psychopathy and control groups. The observed and permuted SSQ ratio maps for each individual were transformed into the standard space (Talairach & Tournoux, 1988) using the two-stage warping procedure described in detail elsewhere (Brammer et al, 1997). Group activation maps were then computed by determining the median SSQ ratio at each voxel (over all individuals) in the observed and permuted data maps (medians are used to minimise outlier effects). The distribution of median SSQ ratios over all intracerebral voxels from the permuted data were then used to derive the null distribution of SSQ ratios, which can be thresholded to produce group activation maps at any desired voxel or cluster-level type 1 error rate. In the two-level clustering procedure (described in detail by Bullmore et al, 1999), the first (voxelwise) thresholding is carried out at an uncorrected P value of 0.05 to give the maximum allowable sensitivity. In order to eliminate the resulting false-positive activations, a second, cluster-level thresholding step is carried out, and the threshold of this second step is adjusted to give an expectation of less than one false-positive cluster over the whole brain. As the cluster level threshold is set at the whole brain level, the normal, voxelwise issue of multiple comparisons does not apply.
Here we report results from the group activation maps of prototypic (100%) expressions v. neutral from the ‘fear’ and ‘happy’ experiments for both the psychopathy and control groups, in which neutral faces were used as non-emotive control stimuli. We predicted that the psychopathy group would show a normal pattern of increased limbic and visual cortical response to happy faces compared with neutral faces, but would fail to show increased responses to fearful faces compared with neutral faces.
Between-group contrasts
Comparisons of responses between groups or experimental conditions was
performed using non-parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA). Data were fitted
at each intracerebral voxel at which all participants have non-zero data using
a linear model of the type Y=a+bX+e, where
Y is the vector of SSQ for each individual, X is the
contrast matrix for the particular intercondition/group contrasts required,
a is the mean effect across all individuals in the various
conditions/groups, b is the computed group/condition difference and
e is a vector of residual errors. The model is fitted by minimising
the sum of absolute deviations rather than the sums of squares to reduce
outlier effects. The null distribution of b is computed by permuting
data between conditions/groups (assuming the null hypothesis of no effect of
experimental condition or group membership) and refitting the above model.
Group difference maps are computed as described above at voxel or cluster
level by appropriate thresholding of the null distribution of b. This
is a standard method for tests of this kind and it gives exact P
values with minimum assumptions
(Edgington, 1995).
We tested the main hypothesis that compared with controls, the psychopathy group would show reduced activation in limbic and visual regions involved in processing fearful faces, but no difference when processing happy faces. Hence we undertook a two-way ANOVA to determine voxel- and cluster-wise between-group differences in BOLD signal to each of the two different facial expression–baseline contrasts for fear and happiness.
In addition, we carried out a two-group (control, psychopathy)xtwo-condition (neutral, prototypic emotion) ANOVA to determine voxel- and cluster-wise between-group differences in BOLD signal change to neutral and prototypically fearful faces and neutral and prototypically happy faces. Groupxcondition analysis tested for interaction effects – that is, differences in the effect of changes from neutral to prototypic emotion on neural response in healthy controls and people with psychopathy. We tested the subsidiary hypothesis that selective deficits in fear processing in the psychopathy group would produce significant between-group differences in change in neural response from neutral to emotion expressions for facial fear, but not for facial happiness.
|
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Facial fear experiment
Between-group comparisons
A two-way ANOVA of the fear–baseline contrast in each group
(Table 1) revealed that
compared with people with psychopathy, control participants showed areas of
significantly greater activation in the cerebellum and fusiform gyrus
(Brodmann area 19) bilaterally, and in the left postcentral gyrus (BA 4) (see
Data supplement 1a to the online version of this paper). No area was activated
more in people with psychopathy than in healthy controls.
|
A two-group (control, psychopathy) xtwo-condition (neutral, fear) ANOVA (Fig. 1a) revealed an interaction in a cluster including active areas in the right cerebellum and fusiform gyrus (BA 19) and in the postcentral gyrus (BA 3).
|
Within-group comparisons
Healthy control participants demonstrated greater activation to fearful
faces compared with neutral faces in clusters that included areas in the right
fusiform gyrus (BA 19), cerebellum, middle frontal gyrus (BA 46), inferior
frontal gyrus (BA 9) and precuneus (BA 31), and the left fusiform gyrus (BA
19) and postcentral gyrus (BA 3) (see Data supplement 2a to the online version
of this paper). Greater activation to neutral faces compared with fearful
faces was demonstrated in the right premotor cortex and supplementary motor
area (BA 6) and the left anterior cingulate gyrus (BA 24).
Participants with psychopathy demonstrated greater activation to fearful faces compared with neutral faces in clusters that included areas in the right insula (BA 13) and precuneus (BA 7) (see Data supplement 2b to the online version of this paper). Greater activation to neutral faces compared with fearful faces was demonstrated in clusters including areas in the right cerebellum and fusiform gyrus (BA 37), and the left fusiform gyrus (BA 19), inferior occipital gyrus (BA 19) and inferior parietal lobule (BA 40) (see Data supplement 2c to the online version of this paper).
Facial happiness experiment
Between-group comparisons
A two-way ANOVA of the happy–baseline contrast in each group revealed
that compared with people with psychopathy, control participants showed areas
of significantly greater activation in the right fusiform gyrus (BA 19) and
left lingual gyrus (BA 18), cerebellum and precentral gyrus (BA 4) (see Data
supplement 1b to the online version of this paper, and
Table 2). There was no area in
which activation was greater in people with psychopathy compared with the
control group.
|
The two-group (control, psychopathy)xtwo-condition (neutral, happy) ANOVA revealed an interaction in a cluster including active areas in the right lingual gyrus (BA 18), middle occipital gyrus (BA 18) and fusiform gyrus (BA 19) (Table 2; Fig. 1b).
Within-group comparisons
The control group demonstrated greater activation to happy faces compared
with neutral faces in clusters that included areas in the right fusiform gyrus
(BA 19) and cerebellum; the left cerebellum, fusiform gyrus (BA 18) and
lingual gyrus (BA 18); the left postcentral gyrus (BA 3) and precentral gyrus
(BA 4), and the precuneus (BA 31) (see Data supplement 3a to the online
version of this paper). Greater activation to neutral faces compared with
happy faces was demonstrated in the left putamen.
The psychopathy group demonstrated greater activation to happy faces compared with neutral faces in clusters that included areas in the right cerebellum and fusiform gyrus (BA 19); left fusiform gyrus (BA 19) and middle occipital gyrus (BA 19); right precuneus (BA 19), anterior cingulate gyrus (BA 24) and medial frontal gyrus (BA 6); and left superior parietal lobule (BA 7) and precuneus (BA 7) (see Data supplement 3b to the online version of this paper). No area was more active in response to neutral faces compared with happy faces.
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
However, response pattern differed by emotion type. Groupxcondition analysis revealed a cluster in the right lingual and fusiform cortices in which the control group showed a greater increase in activation than the psychopathy group when processing happy faces compared with neutral faces (see Fig. 1b and Data supplement 3 to the online version of this paper). In contrast, when processing fearful faces compared with neutral faces, the control group showed increased activation in the right cerebellum and fusiform gyrus (see Fig. 1a) but the psychopathy group showed decreased activation in these regions.
Further evidence that response pattern differs with emotion type was provided by separate within-group contrasts of fearful faces compared with neutral faces, and happy faces compared with neutral faces. For example, both participants with psychopathy and control participants activated overlapping brain regions when processing happy faces compared with neutral faces, including bilateral fusiform and extrastriate cortices. In contrast, participants in control and psychopathy groups activated different regions when processing fearful faces compared with neutral faces – for example, control participants activated the fusiform gyrus bilaterally, whereas those in the psychopathy group did not. Instead, the latter showed decreased rather than increased bilateral fusiform gyrus activation to fearful faces compared with neutral faces.
In summary, people with psychopathy show reduced visual cortical activation in response to both fearful and happy faces compared with controls. However, they also show a normal pattern of increased visual cortical responses to happy faces compared with neutral faces, in contrast to an atypical pattern of decreased visual cortical responses to fearful faces compared with neutral faces.
Prior neuroimaging studies have consistently shown increased fusiform and extrastriate cortical activation in response to happy v. neutral expressions (Surguladze et al, 2003). Hence, our results suggest that the neural substrates for processing facial expressions of happiness are functionally intact in psychopathic disorder, although less responsive than those of controls. However, prior studies of facial emotion recognition in children with psychopathic traits did not report differences in recognition of happy faces compared with controls (Blair et al, 2001b). Hence, the neural hyporesponsiveness to happy faces we found in our psychopathy group may not be associated with significant impairments of behaviour. We did not directly study this issue, however. Further studies are required to investigate the relationship between emotion recognition and brain function when people with psychopathy process happy facial expressions.
Prior neuroimaging studies in healthy individuals have also consistently demonstrated increased visual cortical activation in response to fearful faces (Morris et al, 1996, 1998; Vuilleumier et al, 2004). Hence, findings of reduced rather than increased visual cortical response to fearful faces compared with neutral faces in psychopathic individuals suggest an atypical pattern of facial fear processing in people with this disorder.
In healthy people, visual cortical activation in response to fearful faces is boosted by feedback modulation from the amygdala (Vuilleumier et al, 2004). Hence, reduced rather than increased visual cortical response to fearful faces compared with neutral faces in psychopathy may reflect differences in amygdala function in people with this disorder. This would support suggestions that amygdala dysfunction underpins selective deficits in processing facial expressions of distress in adults with psychopathy and children with psychopathic traits; including recognition of fearful and sad faces (Blair et al, 2001b) and reduced autonomic responsiveness to distress cues (Blair et al, 1997). We did not find significant between-group differences in amygdala function; this might be due to our small sample size, or to other factors (see below). Nevertheless, others reported that people with psychopathy have low resting skin conductance and reduced aversive conditioning relative to people without this disorder, suggesting reduced amygdala activity (Hare & Quinn, 1971; Hare, 1982; Patrick, 1994; Birbaumer et al, 2005). Also, people with psychopathy show reduced amygdala activity during aversive conditioning and when processing negative valence words (Kiehl et al, 2001; Birbaumer et al, 2005). Furthermore, there is an association between reduced amygdaloid volume and increased levels of psychopathy (Tiihonen et al, 2000). In addition, in a non-psychiatric population of college students, high scorers on the emotional–interpersonal factor of a trait measure of psychopathy (the Psychopathy Personality Inventory) showed reduced amygdala activation during a facial affect recognition task compared with low scorers (Gordon et al, 2004). Thus, we plan in future studies, and in larger samples, to investigate the ‘connectivity’ of amygdala and cortical facial emotion processing areas.
Facial fear processing, aversive conditioning and socialisation
The differences we found when people with psychopathy process facial
emotion may contribute to their clinical phenotype. For example, failure to
recognise and emotionally respond to facial and other signals of distress may
underlie failure to inhibit behaviour that engenders distress in others during
social interactions; or, more generally, may underlie the lack of emotional
empathy observed in this population (Blair,
1995,
2003). Also, reduced affective
responses to facial expressions of distress may lead to failure to form
conditioned associations between representations of behaviour that engendered
distress and aversive arousal, so contributing to impaired moral socialisation
(Blair, 1995,
2003). Further, generalised
impairment of aversive conditioning may make individuals with psychopathy less
anxious when anticipating the consequences of their actions, and less
responsive to punishment occurring as a result of their actions
(Blair, 2001;
Viding, 2004).
Limitations of the study
There were several potential limitations to our study, including sample
size, the failure to directly detect amygdala activity in within-group and
between-group contrasts, and the inclusion in the psychopathy group of one
person with a recent history of harmful use of cocaine. Nevertheless, we
employed a conservative analysis method to reduce the risk of type 1 errors,
so that our findings are likely to reflect true activations. Hence, the
activations we report are likely to remain even if increasing sample size
reveals additional active brain areas.
Our failure to find activation of the amygdala in any of our contrasts between the psychopathy and control groups may be due to our small sample size and hence power limitations. However, we previously detected differential amygdala activation in the fear–neutral contrast in a healthy control group (n=9) using the same paradigm (Surguladze et al, 2003). Similarly, differential amygdala activation has been detected in psychopathy during an emotion processing task in the same number of people (n=6) (Muller et al, 2003). Also, not all previous studies of facial fear perception in healthy controls have demonstrated amygdala activation (Sprengelmeyer et al, 1998; Lange et al, 2003). However, there may be scope for optimising magnetic resonance acquisition parameters in future studies (e.g. by using a smaller slice thickness, or slice-dependent variations in echo time; Stocker et al, 2006) to increase the likelihood of detecting amygdala activation, given its central importance to theories of social cognition in general and psychopathy in particular.
One person in the psychopathy group had displayed significant use of cocaine in the 6 months prior to scanning. However, our results did not differ when his data were dropped from the analysis.
Hence, people with psychopathy have biological differences from controls when they implicitly process facial emotion. The underlying biological substrates for processing facial expressions of happiness are functionally intact, although less responsive than those of controls. In contrast, people with psychopathy display an atypical pattern of response to fearful faces compared with neutral faces, including decreased activation of the fusiform and extrastriate cortical regions. This may partly account for impaired recognition of and reduced autonomic responsiveness to expressions of fear, and impairments of empathy. Further studies are required to elucidate how these abnormalities arise and how they affect social behaviour and socialisation.
|
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Blair, R. J. (1995) A cognitive developmental approach to morality: investigating the psychopath. Cognition, 57, 1 –29.[CrossRef][Medline]
Blair, R. J. (2001) Neurocognitive models of
aggression, the antisocial personality disorders, and psychopathy.
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry,
71, 727
–731.
Blair, R. J. R. (2003) Neurobiological basis of
psychopathy. British Journal of Psychiatry,
182, 5
–7.
Blair, R. J., Jones, L., Clerk, F., et al (1997) The psychopathic individual: a lack of responsiveness to distress cues? Psychophysiology, 34, 192 –198.[Medline]
Blair, R. J., Colledge, E. & Mitchell, D. G. (2001a) Somatic markers and response reversal: is there orbitofrontal cortex dysfunction in boys with psychopathic tendencies? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 499 –511.[CrossRef][Medline]
Blair, R. J., Colledge, E., Murray, L., et al (2001b) A selective impairment in the processing of sad and fearful expressions in children with psychopathic tendencies. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 491 –498.[CrossRef][Medline]
Blair, R. J., Mitchell, D. G., Richell, R. A., et al (2002) Turning a deaf ear to fear: impaired recognition of vocal affect in psychopathic individuals. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 682 –686.[CrossRef][Medline]
Brammer, M. J., Bullmore, E. T., Simmons, A., et al (1997) Generic brain activation mapping in functional magnetic resonance imaging: a nonparametric approach. Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 15, 763 –770.[CrossRef][Medline]
Bullmore, E. T., Suckling, J., Overmeyer, S., et al (1999) Global, voxel, and cluster tests, by theory and permutation, for a difference between two groups of structural MR images of the brain. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 18, 32 –42.[CrossRef][Medline]
Bullmore, E., Long, C., Suckling, J., et al (2001) Colored noise and computational inference in neurophysiological (fMRI) time series analysis: resampling methods in time and wavelet domains. Human Brain Mapping, 12, 61 –78.[CrossRef][Medline]
Cleckly, H. C. (1941) The Mask of Sanity: An Attempt to Reinterpret the So-Called Psychopathic Personality. St Louis, MO: Mosby.
Cooke, D. J. (1995a) Psychopathy across cultures. Issues in Criminological and Legal Psychology, 24–29.
Cooke, D. J. (1995b) Psychopathic disturbance in the Scottish prison population: the cross-cultural generalisability of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist. Psychology, Crime and Law, 2, 101 –118.
Cooke, D. J. (1996) Psychopathic personality in different cultures: what do we know? What do we need to find out? Journal of Personality Disorders, 10, 23 –40.
Cooke, D. J. & Michie, C. (1999) Psychopathy across cultures: North America and Scotland compared. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 58 –68.[CrossRef][Medline]
Edgington, E. S. (1995) Randomisation Tests (3rd edn). New York: Marcel Dekker.
Friman, O., Borga, M., Lundberg, P., et al (2003) Adaptive analysis of fMRI data. NeuroImage, 19, 837 –845.[CrossRef][Medline]
Gordon, H. L., Baird, A. A. & End, A. (2004) Functional differences among those high and low on a trait measure of psychopathy. Biological Psychiatry, 56, 516 –521.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hare, R. (1982) Psychopathy and physiological activity during anticipation of an aversive stimulus in a distraction paradigm. Psychophysiology, 19, 266 –271.[Medline]
Hare, R. D. (1991) The Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R. D. & Quinn, M. J. (1971) Psychopathy and autonomic conditioning. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 77, 223 –235.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hemphill, J. F., Hare, R. D. & Wong, S. (1998) Psychopathy and recidivism: a review. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 50, 677 –684.
Kiehl, K. A., Smith, A. M., Hare, R. D., et al (2001) Limbic abnormalities in affective processing by criminal psychopaths as revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Biological Psychiatry, 50, 677 –684.[CrossRef][Medline]
Lange, K., Williams, L. M., Young, A. W., et al (2003) Task instructions modulate neural responses to fearful facial expressions. Biological Psychiatry, 53, 226 –232.[CrossRef][Medline]
Morris, J. S., Frith, C. D., Perrett, D. J., et al (1996) A differential neural response in the human amygdala to fearful and happy facial expressions. Nature, 383, 812 –815.[CrossRef][Medline]
Morris, J. S., Friston, K. J., Buchel, C., et al
(1998) A neuromodulatory role for the human amygdala in
processing emotional facial expressions. Brain,
121, 47
–57.
Muller, J. L., Sommer, M., Wagner, V., et al (2003) Abnormalities in emotion processing within cortical and subcortical regions in criminal psychopaths: evidence from a functional magnetic resonance imaging study using pictures with emotional content. Biological Psychiatry, 54, 152 –162.[CrossRef][Medline]
Patrick, C. J. (1994) Emotion and psychopathy: startling new insights. Psychophysiology, 31, 319 –330.[Medline]
Shine, J. & Hobson, J. (2000) Institutional behaviour and time in treatment among psychopaths admitted to a prison-based therapeutic community. Medicine, Science and the Law, 40, 327 –335.[Medline]
Sprengelmeyer, R., Rausch, M., Eysel, U. T., et al (1998) Neural structures associated with recognition of facial expressions of basic emotions. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences, 265, 1927 –1931.[Medline]
Stevens, D., Charman, T. & Blair, R. J. (2001) Recognition of emotion in facial expressions and vocal tones in children with psychopathic tendencies. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 162, 201 –211.[Medline]
Stocker, T., Kellerman, T., Schneider, F., et al (2006) Dependence of amygdala activation on echo time: results from olfactory fMRI experiments. NeuroImage, 30, 151 –159.[CrossRef][Medline]
Surguladze, S. A., Brammer, M. J., Young, A. W., et al (2003) A preferential increase in the extrastriate response to signals of danger. NeuroImage, 19, 1317 –1328.[CrossRef][Medline]
Talairach, J. & Tournoux, P. (1988) Co-Planar Stereotaxic Atlas of the Human Brain. Stuttgart: Thieme.
Tiihonen, J., Hodgins, S., Vaurio, O., et al (2000) Amygdaloid volume loss in psychopathy. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts, 2017 .
Tunstall, N., Fahy, T. & McGuire, P. (2003) Functional imaging studies of psychopathy, antisocial personality disorder, and related psychological processes. In Guide to Neuroimaging in Psychiatry (eds C. Fu, R. Murray, T. Russell, et al), pp. 257–274. London: Martin Dunitz.
Viding, E. (2004) Annotation: understanding the development of psychopathy. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 45, 1329 –1337.[CrossRef][Medline]
Vuilleumier, P., Richardson, M. P., Armony, J. L., et al (2004) Distant influences of amygdala lesion on visual cortical activation during emotional face processing. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 1271 –1278.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wechsler, D. (1981) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale: WAIS–R Manual. New York: Psychological Corporation.
Young, A. P., Calder, A. J., Sprengelmeyer, R., et al (2002) Facial Expressions of Emotion: Stimuli and Tests (FEEST). Bury St Edmunds:Thames Valley Test Co.
Received for publication January 6, 2006. Revision received June 16, 2006. Accepted for publication August 1, 2006.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. A. Marsh, E. C. Finger, D. G.V. Mitchell, M. E. Reid, C. Sims, D. S. Kosson, K. E. Towbin, E. Leibenluft, D. S. Pine, and R. J.R. Blair Reduced Amygdala Response to Fearful Expressions in Children and Adolescents With Callous-Unemotional Traits and Disruptive Behavior Disorders Am J Psychiatry, June 1, 2008; 165(6): 712 - 720. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Facial Emotional Processing and Psychopathy Journal Watch Psychiatry, January 8, 2007; 2007(108): 7 - 7. [Full Text]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Psychiatric Bulletin | Advances in Psychiatric Treatment | All RCPsych Journals |
