ライフサイエンスコーパス: fearful

1 men who were or were not classified as being fearful according to the TPDS (AUC .86).

2 tion of various facial expressions (neutral, fearful, aggressive, and appeasing).

3 our target conditions (happy, sad, angry and fearful) along the dimension of threat-relatedness.

4 ngry (rostral anterior cingulate cortex) and fearful (amygdala and rostral anterior cingulate cortex)

5 ns, significantly reducing responses to both fearful and aggressive faces in face-responsive regions

6 ferior temporal cortex during the viewing of fearful and aggressive faces, but not during the viewing

7 la, thalamus, putamen and occipital areas to fearful and angry expressions at treatment follow-up com

8 s well as task-evoked amygdala reactivity to fearful and angry faces (p = .0048).

9 implicit processing of emerging happy, sad, fearful and angry faces and shapes.

10 asured threat-related amygdala reactivity to fearful and angry facial expressions using functional ma

11 o normally engage the amygdala in processing fearful and angry facial representations is more likely

12 namide riboside corrects social deficits and fearful and anxiety-like behaviours in CD157 knockout ma

13 es in pCREB-lir in brain areas implicated in fearful and anxious behavior.

14 The less dentally fearful and anxious patients were in general and the mor

15 y increased activation for emotional (mainly fearful and appeasing) faces compared with neutral faces

16 MRI was used to measure neural responses to fearful and calm faces presented preattentively (for 17

17 Amygdala response to fearful and calm faces was predicted to differentiate gr

18 urotransmitter known to be linked to learned fearful and emotional behavior, has dual effects on exci

19 hat participants' ratings of valenced faces (fearful and happy), compared to neutral, were more negat

20 right parietal cortex distinguishes between fearful and neutral bodies as early as 80-ms after stimu

21 nd the 1-month assessment, passively viewing fearful and neutral face stimuli.

22 performance on the working memory tasks with fearful and neutral faces as variables relevant for BD v

23 eness and alter judgments of emotionality of fearful and neutral faces.

24 ng implicit (task-unrelated) presentation of fearful and neutral faces.

25 Q (mean=100) viewed blocked presentations of fearful and neutral faces.

26 went functional MRI assessment while viewing fearful and neutral facial expressions at baseline and a

27 central processing of emotional information (fearful and neutral facial expressions).

28 w that 7-mo-old infants discriminate between fearful and nonfearful eyes (experiment 1) and between d

29 playing an essential part in processing both fearful and rewarding environmental stimuli.

30 task of negative emotional faces (angry and fearful) and geometric shapes that was designed for func

31 rain responses to threatening (ie, angry and fearful) and happy faces were examined as predictors of

32 ts to two types of social stimuli, negative (fearful) and positive (happy) emotional facial expressio

33 or no psychopathology (N=17) viewed neutral, fearful, and angry expressions while ostensibly making a

34 ouths) performed a labeling task with happy, fearful, and angry faces of varying emotional intensity.

35 he factors were labelled secure-preoccupied, fearful, and dismissive nation attachment.

36 During fMRI scans, participants saw angry, fearful, and neutral expression stimuli while making a g

37 tal emotion processing task including happy, fearful, and neutral faces.

38 ain responses when observers viewed neutral, fearful, and scrambled faces, either visible or rendered

39 ially isolated females possessed an anxious, fearful, and vigilant phenotype.

40 d a gender identification task while viewing fearful, angry, and neutral faces.

41 response to emotionally valenced faces (sad, fearful, angry, happy, neutral) following a negative moo

42 n circuits associated with identification of fearful, angry, sad, happy, and neutral faces using a la

43 l circuits associated with identification of fearful, angry, sad, happy, and neutral faces, and revea

44 brain response to social signals of threat (fearful/angry faces) in 21 gSP patients before and after

45 representations of experienced and observed fearful anticipation spontaneously and following an empa

46 otivated behavior becomes incrementally more fearful as the same microinjection is moved caudally.

47 mesolimbic dopamine inputs mediate forms of fearful as well as of incentive motivation.

48 rator in distress, an observer mouse becomes fearful, as indicated by a tendency to freeze and subseq

49 d reactive zebrafish learn and remember this fearful association.

50 solidation of new memories that compete with fearful associations.

51 , and equally prevented DNQX from generating fearful behavior (defensive treading) in caudal shell.

52 ailability cause phenotypes characterized by fearful behavior in preclinical models.

53 contributes to both appetitive behavior and fearful behavior that is generated in keyboard manner by

54 tions the disruptions generate progressively fearful behaviors (distress vocalizations, escape attemp

55 r example, either appetitive and/or actively fearful behaviors are generated in a keyboard pattern by

56 , but the disruption incrementally generates fearful behaviors as microinjection sites move more caud

57 erally suppressed both appetitive eating and fearful behaviors generated by NAc shell disruptions.

58 a temperament characterized by cautious and fearful behaviors to unfamiliar situations, shapes long-

59 ere also more likely to show alarm and other fearful behaviors, although such neophobic (and converse

60 Sham rats exhibit a continuum of anxious/fearful behaviors.

61 ally placed disruptions produce increasingly fearful behaviors: distress vocalizations and escape att

62 , increasing the likelihood of aggressive or fearful behaviour in younger children, especially in boy

63 namics of automatic visual discrimination of fearful body expressions by monitoring cortical activity

64 Our results indicate that observing fearful body expressions produces increased activity in

65 ses, beginning 74-ms post-stimulus onset, to fearful, but not neutral or happy, facial expressions.

66 erience strongly predicted identification of fearful, but not of happy, emotional examples.

67 The probability of selecting the "fearful" category to describe fearful examples increased

68 ndent responses of the amygdala to angry and fearful compared with happy facial expressions.

69 A neutral sensory stimulus can become a fearful conditioned stimulus (CS) through conditioning.

70 avioral cost of adaptation, specifically for fearful contents, demonstrating that aIPS contains a rep

71 avioral cost of adaptation, specifically for fearful contents.

72 s significantly increased in response to the fearful context compared with the safe context.

73 ed fear is attenuated through exposures to a fearful context in the absence of threat.

74 ore, the newly formed representations of the fearful context stabilized in the long term.

75 ns in arousal and sleep that occur after the fearful cue is no longer presented.

76 mechanisms that may underlie the effects of fearful cue presentation, we measured release of [(3)H]-

77 ed at 2-3 h after exposure of animals to the fearful cue, but recovered after 4-5 h.

78 which were trained to recognize a tone as a fearful cue, was suppressed at 2-3 h after exposure of a

79 The similar time course of fearful cue-induced changes in neurotransmitter release

80 The authors investigated ASR modulation to fearful, disgusting, pleasant, and neutral stimuli in 12

81 rofessionals as showing examples of happy or fearful dog behavior.

82 tive and informative signature of unattended fearful emotion processing.

83 respondents when interpreting both happy and fearful emotional examples.

84 term spatial representation in response to a fearful encounter.

85 e of a direct history of conditioning with a fearful event differs from directly learned avoidance.

86 e social ingroup and outgroup members with a fearful event, with the goal of advancing our understand

87 Memories of fearful events can last a lifetime.

88 The context in which sudden fearful events occur can be poorly encoded into memory.

89 selecting the "fearful" category to describe fearful examples increased with experience and ranged fr

90 e that previously had been associated with a fearful experience (footshock) produces alterations in a

91 Male and female rats respond to a fearful experience in different ways, but this was not p

92 Neuromodulators released during and after a fearful experience promote the consolidation of long-ter

93 ere we show that during and directly after a fearful experience, new hippocampal representations are

94 In some individuals, fearful experiences (e.g., combat) yield persistent and

95 Fearful experiences can produce long-lasting and debilit

96 reprocessing of mnemonic traces that encode fearful experiences might result in fear-related psychop

97 neuron subtypes encoded distinct aspects of fearful experiences such as valence or value, whereas di

98 itecture, amygdala could enhance encoding of fearful expression movements from video and the form of

99 timuli either displayed a neutral, happy, or fearful expression.

100 the greatest response in monkeys-even though fearful expressions are physically dissimilar in humans

101 As in human fMRI, fearful expressions evoked the greatest response in monk

102 ression movements from video and the form of fearful expressions from static images.

103 ral fusiform face area showed sensitivity to fearful expressions in static faces.

104 ression analysis found amygdala responses to fearful expressions to be negatively associated with CU

105 inverse relationship between the response to fearful expressions under low attentional load and the c

106 traits showed reduced amygdala responses to fearful expressions under low attentional load but no in

107 increase in the typical amygdala response to fearful expressions under low relative to high attention

108 ts were less able than controls to recognize fearful expressions, and showed lower activation in pref

109 bjects and youths with ADHD while processing fearful expressions, but not neutral or angry expression

110 perception of highly degraded, subthreshold fearful expressions.

111 happy expressions and to decrease arousal to fearful expressions.

112 w a robust fear bias (increased attention to fearful eyes), their attention to angry and happy eyes v

113 g of varying intensities of angry, happy, or fearful face emotions.

114 e suggest that the conscious decision that a fearful face has been seen is represented across a netwo

115 During fearful face presentation, the most informative and posi

116 creased amygdala-related connectivity during fearful face processing after the placebo treatment in h

117 o had stronger dynamic coupling and enhanced fearful face recognition.

118 assessed its effects on neural responses to fearful face stimuli.

119 d emotional information, such as an angry or fearful face, has not only perceptual advantages but als

120 onse to a happy face but not to a neutral or fearful face.

121 f shock improved recall of threat-congruent (fearful) face location, especially in highly trait anxio

122 increased zygomaticus major activation) and fearful faces (leading to increased frontalis activation

123 es in sensitivity to the detection of masked fearful faces (whereby briefly presented, target fearful

124 gSP subjects reduced amygdala reactivity to fearful faces (which was exaggerated relative to HCs bef

125 citalopram on the left amygdala response to fearful faces (Z=2.51, p=0.027) and right amygdala respo

126 maging was used to detect brain responses to fearful faces and dynamic causal modelling was applied t

127 le paradigm that differentiates responses to fearful faces and fearful non-social images and (iii) me

128 amygdala and nucleus accumbens activation to fearful faces and lower nucleus accumbens activation to

129 a lack of startle potentiation while viewing fearful faces and showed reduced skin conductance respon

130 ful faces (whereby briefly presented, target fearful faces are immediately followed by a neutral face

131 Notably, SM's recognition of fearful faces became entirely normal when she was instru

132 both the visible and invisible conditions to fearful faces but much weaker in the invisible condition

133 vity in the STS was robust only to invisible fearful faces but not to neutral faces.

134 Attending to fearful faces compared with neutral landscape stimuli en

135 ne oscillatory activity during processing of fearful faces compared with neutral landscapes.

136 scanner, we manipulated visual awareness of fearful faces during an affect misattribution paradigm,

137 ants discriminated the gender of neutral and fearful faces filtered for low or high spatial frequenci

138 task designed to probe amygdala response to fearful faces following acute intranasal administration

139 We report that fearful faces gain privileged access to awareness over a

140 tional connectivity during the processing of fearful faces in GSAD subjects and healthy controls (HCs

141 at patient 1 showed potentiated responses to fearful faces in her left premotor cortex face area and

142 tween arousal and the cognitive appraisal of fearful faces in the condition of X-monosomy or Turner s

143 r frontal gyrus when inhibiting responses to fearful faces in the high-risk participants compared wit

144 selectively impairs explicit recognition of fearful faces in the presence of normal or enhanced auto

145 The amygdala responded to fearful faces independently of awareness.

146 schizophrenia in response to presentation of fearful faces is paradoxically associated with failure t

147 Amygdala hyperactivity in response to fearful faces is present in both youths and adults with

148 ure, shorter mean fixation time when viewing fearful faces predicted higher PTSD symptom scores, and

149 ondingly, amygdala responses were greater to fearful faces presented at systole relative to diastole.

150 lood oxygen level-dependent responses during fearful faces processing.

151 BNC210 reduced amygdala reactivity to fearful faces relative to placebo and similarly to loraz

152 cutely reduced the left amygdala response to fearful faces relative to the saline injection.

153 ivation of the "low road" subcortical route, fearful faces represent the only visually processed stim

154 Fearful faces significantly activated the amygdala in th

155 gnificantly higher left amygdala response to fearful faces than healthy control subjects, whose activ

156 t not controls, showed greater activation to fearful faces than to happy faces in a distributed netwo

157 vel, both OXT and LZP inhibited responses to fearful faces vs. neutral faces within the centromedial

158 Overall, correct detection of angry and fearful faces was associated with greater activation com

159 ivity (fearful > neutral) and habituation to fearful faces was examined.

160 r amygdala activation to the presentation of fearful faces was highly correlated with greater severit

161 visible, activity in FFA to both neutral and fearful faces was much reduced, although still measurabl

162 However, when awareness of fearful faces was prevented, individuals with greater am

163 facilitative affect was evident when masked fearful faces were coupled with happy target faces.

164 Our results show that fearful faces were detected more easily and were rated a

165 mygdala, where responses during appraisal of fearful faces were selectively reduced by carotid stimul

166 report high gamma (70-180 Hz) activation for fearful faces with earlier stimulus evoked onset in the

167 ues and rewarding (happy faces) or aversive (fearful faces) social outcomes.

168 mited to low spatial frequency components of fearful faces, as predicted by magnocellular inputs to a

169 In response to fearful faces, bipolar patients across age groups exhibi

170 gdala response to unattended versus attended fearful faces, but "high-anxious" participants showed no

171 and subjective measures, gaze moved towards fearful faces, but away from angry faces.

172 f unattended threat-related stimuli, such as fearful faces, has been previously examined using group

173 t patient 2, showed preserved recognition of fearful faces, intact modulation of acoustic startle res

174 esion typically show impaired recognition of fearful faces, this deficit is variable, and an intrigui

175 ivation evoked by repetitions of neutral and fearful faces, which were either task relevant (targets)

176 es during appraisal and subjective rating of fearful faces.

177 ior cingulate gyrus during the processing of fearful faces.

178 change in the explicit emotional ratings of fearful faces.

179 o the eye regions of faces, particularly for fearful faces.

180 usal connectivity models of sensitivity with fearful faces.

181 bilateral amygdala activation in response to fearful faces.

182 ssed patients but did not alter responses to fearful faces.

183 on and nonconscious processing of those same fearful faces.

184 rect identification of happy, sad, angry and fearful faces.

185 manifested lesser right amygdala activity to fearful faces.

186 that mediate social cognition while viewing fearful faces.

187 ciation to angry and happy faces relative to fearful faces.

188 er sensitivity to context when responding to fearful faces.

189 ally relevant visual information conveyed by fearful faces.

190 esent in the bipolar disorder group only for fearful faces.

191 MRI paradigm that measures brain response to fearful faces; (ii) a fear-potentiated startle paradigm

192 which subjects were presented with morphs of fearful facial emotional expressions.

193 Advice from partners making a fearful facial expression influenced participants' decis

194 e of a potential threat (i.e., suspicious or fearful facial expression).

195 than it is to the presentation of happy and fearful facial expressions alone.

196 Perceptual biases for fearful facial expressions are observed across many stud

197 ous research using CFS has demonstrated that fearful facial expressions are prioritised by the visual

198 suggest that while the amygdala can process fearful facial expressions in the absence of conscious p

199 mygdala volume and reduced responsiveness to fearful facial expressions observed in psychopathic indi

200 g object-emotion associations from happy and fearful facial expressions than it is to the presentatio

201 enhanced responsiveness of this structure to fearful facial expressions, an effect that predicts supe

202 tion, MDMA impaired recognition of angry and fearful facial expressions, and the larger dose (1.5 mg/

203 ption at random, and did so using neutral or fearful facial expressions.

204 ffects, showing similar biases for detecting fearful facial expressions.

205 ala activation patterns during processing of fearful facial expressions.

206 (ii) aggressive (open-mouthed threat), (iii) fearful (fear grin), and (iv) submissive (lip smack).

207 ns--neutral, aggressive (open mouth threat), fearful (fear grin), and appeasing (lip smack)--were pre

208 n their ability cognitively to differentiate fearful from other facial expressions but they acquire f

209 Reactivity (fearful > neutral) and habituation to fearful faces was

210 block design incidental affective task with fearful, happy and neutral face stimuli and compared val

211 potential in response to naturalistic angry, fearful, happy, and neutral facial expressions.

212 erlying identification and categorization of fearful, happy, angry, sad, and neutral facial expressio

213 dogs, humans and chimpanzees, showing angry, fearful, happy, neutral and sad emotions, and had to ass

214 in a comfortable home environment to mostly fearful in a stressful environment, the roles of local D

215 in providing such a therapy, means that most fearful individuals are not able to receive the therapy

216 at old fear memories can be updated with non-fearful information provided during the reconsolidation

217 complex social behaviors such as shyness or fearful interaction with strangers can be observed, it m

218 2 tasks are quick to administer, involve no fearful learning associations, and require a simple appa

219 Accordingly, episodic memory for fearful locations is widely studied using contextual fea

220 Attenuating the strength of fearful memories could benefit people disabled by memori

221 The inability to store fearful memories into their original encoding context is

222 r, our data reveal that the consolidation of fearful memories related to simple auditory stimuli requ

223 her the auditory cortex is also required for fearful memories related to simple sensory stimuli.

224 necessary for the consolidation of auditory fearful memories related to simple tones in rats.

225 tory cortex, is involved in the formation of fearful memories with a more complex sensory stimulus pa

226 oxical role of ghrelin in the acquisition of fearful memories.

227 are characterized by impaired extinction of fearful memories.

228 The dynamic of fearful memory consolidation is poorly understood.

229 s both appetitive motivation for rewards and fearful motivation toward threats, which are generated i

230 keyboard stimulation of both appetitive and fearful motivations.

231 hat changed their expression from neutral to fearful, neutral, or happy expressions.

232 ution (the rating of subtle emotional faces: fearful, neutral, or happy).

233 , and only in them did differential SCRs (to fearful-neutral faces) correlate positively with left fu

234 Arousal to (fearful-neutral) faces was associated with transiently i

235 l face gender-labeling tasks (happy/neutral; fearful/neutral) during fMRI.

236 ifferentiates responses to fearful faces and fearful non-social images and (iii) measurement of skin

237 When a chimpanzee BT was interpreted as fearful, observers tended to underestimate the magnitude

238 tors disappear, large herbivores become less fearful, occupy new habitats, and modify those habitats

239 Many patients are fearful of acquiring COVID-19 in hospitals and clinics.

240 th a better indicator of death and were more fearful of being alive during organ donation.

241 ients prescribed topical glucocorticoids are fearful of side effects and fail to use them appropriate

242 their children about the condition, and are fearful of the effect on their family.

243 bed an EAI were queried on whether they were fearful of using it and on factors that may contribute t

244 nals, such as face expressions, particularly fearful ones, and facilitates responses to them in face-

245 abeled neurons that were activated by either fearful or aggressive social encounters in a hypothalami

246 hich conflicting cues give rise to negative, fearful or even violent reactions.

247 y that a facial expression is categorized as fearful or happy).

248 d from experimental groups which experienced fearful or neutral cues.

249 y ranging in trait anxiety while they viewed fearful or neutral faces with averted or directed gaze,

250 ferent populations of BLA neurons may encode fearful or rewarding associations, but the identifying f

251 scanned immediately following exposure to a fearful or safe context, and differences in [(18)F]fluor

252 asy) or 2-back (difficult) tasks with happy, fearful, or neutral faces, and then, perform the task.

253 hat the target person was looking at (happy, fearful, or neutral), and another close-up of the same t

254 onditioning to cues that predict aversive or fearful outcomes.

255 ucing effect, one additional group of spider-fearful participants (n = 15) received a single dose of

256 Spider-fearful participants received a single dose of 40 mg of

257 displayed an earlier decrease in nervous and fearful personality qualities than did controls.

258 The fearful phenotype appears to be the result of hippocampa

259 s, reduced aggressive gestures, and enhanced fearful reactions to social cues compared with normal co

260 iety disorder showed increased activation to fearful relative to neutral expressions in several regio

261 rder showed significantly less activation to fearful relative to neutral faces compared to the health

262 ths had significantly greater activations to fearful relative to neutral facial expressions than did

263 precuneus, and left supramarginal gyrus for fearful (relative to neutral) faces.

264 The amygdala underlies fearful responses to a rubber snake from the first expos

265 ous individuals showed persistent, long-term fearful responses to both a HI and a model snake, alongs

266 Therefore, fearful responses to somatosensory stimuli in En2 (-/-)

267 ction can predispose animals to differential fearful responses to threats.

268 ers while they viewed a two-by-two matrix of fearful, sad, happy, and neutral facial expressions befo

269 ther positive incentive salience or negative fearful salience (valence depending on site and other co

270 table dimensions of responses (aggressive to fearful; shy to bold) across contexts and with a heritab

271 sensory consequences of vlPAG activation in fearful situations are well understood, but much less is

272 In many circumstances, subjects respond to fearful situations with avoidance.

273 attenuated amygdala reactivity to negative (fearful) social stimuli, compared with controls.

274 (P < 0.05) with a similar trend observed to fearful stimuli (P = 0.07).

275 hose regions during perceptual processing of fearful stimuli demonstrated tight coupling as a feedbac

276 eward circuits while attenuating response to fearful stimuli in visual and limbic regions.

277 ex activation over repeated presentations of fearful stimuli predicted increasing symptoms.

278 sorders tend to overgeneralize attributes of fearful stimuli to nonfearful stimuli, but there is litt

279 onance imaging study, amygdala reactivity to fearful stimuli was assessed in healthy male adults (n =

280 ty and on amygdala response while processing fearful stimuli were related to local availability of it

281 ciated with increased amygdala activation to fearful stimuli, a neural correlate for PTSD.

282 e in physiologic and behavioral responses to fearful stimuli, stressful stimuli, and drug-related sti

283 muli (t = 2.96, P = 0.006) (with a trend for fearful stimuli, t = 1.81, P = 0.08) compared with healt

284 ted with changes in the neural processing of fearful stimuli, we show activation of race-threat stere

285 inct brain regions in response to social and fearful stimuli.

286 r cingulate cortex activation in response to fearful stimuli.

287 variants display low amygdala reactivity to fearful stimuli.

288 In contrast, the same network responded to a fearful stimulus by enhancement of rhythmicity in the lo

289 he recovery of subjects' expectancies of the fearful stimulus is independent of when extinction occur

290 referred firing locations in response to the fearful stimulus.

291 ormed a go/no-go task responding to happy or fearful target faces presented in the left visual field,

292 ve immunity have left vulnerable communities fearful that they may become the center of next ZIKV out

293 ignificantly greater circuit coupling during fearful versus happy face processing in anxious, but not

294 teers had greater right amygdala activity to fearful versus neutral compared with happy versus neutra

295 on, having an increased amygdala response to fearful versus neutral faces regardless of attentional f

296 e right supplementary motor area during both fearful versus neutral, and happy versus neutral 'stimul

297 nished medial prefrontal cortex responses to fearful vs happy facial expressions.

298 tended to exhibit diminished habituation of fearful vs happy responses in the right amygdala across

299 ly increased bilateral amygdala responses to fearful vs neutral faces (left p=0.025; right p=0.038 FW

300 h stimuli of varying intensities (neutral to fearful) while they were exposed to both sweat stimuli a

301 Participants watched series of happy or fearful whole-body point-light displays (PLDs) as adapte