ライフサイエンスコーパス: fearful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14 colliculus both have a restrictive effect on fearful and aversive behavior.

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

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

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

18 mygdala responses in G.Y. to presentation of fearful and fear-conditioned faces in his blind (right)

19 ntially to faces with emotional expressions (fearful and happy) compared with neutral faces.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

34 dala activation in response to harsh (angry, fearful, and contemptous) vs accepting (happy) facial em

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

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

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

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

46 solidation of new memories that compete with fearful associations.

47 r are formed, and in the regions that convey fearful auditory information to the lateral nucleus.

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

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

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

51 We hypothesized that a fearful behavioral style emerging early in life would be

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

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

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

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

56 exually differentiated sexual, parental, and fearful behaviors in adults, this study examined the eff

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

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

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

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

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

62 c during infancy died sooner than their less fearful brothers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

69 avioral cost of adaptation, specifically for fearful contents.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

78 ng, shock training (ST) and shock-associated fearful cues (FC) produce relatively selective decreases

79 ior, but in the caudal shell instead elicits fearful defensive treading behavior.

80 ometimes positive eating simultaneously with fearful defensive treading more caudally).

81 neural substrates which mediate responses to fearful, disgusted and happy expressions.

82 , patients performed worse on recognition of fearful, disgusted, and neutral expressions.

83 nd extreme intensities of happy, sad, angry, fearful, disgusted, and neutral faces, balanced for gend

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

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

86 tive and informative signature of unattended fearful emotion processing.

87 respondents when interpreting both happy and fearful emotional examples.

88 term spatial representation in response to a fearful encounter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

97 Fearful experiences can produce long-lasting and debilit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

109 cortex responses to hybrid faces containing fearful expressions when such emotional cues are present

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

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

112 perception of highly degraded, subthreshold fearful expressions.

113 happy expressions and to decrease arousal to fearful expressions.

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

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

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

117 During fearful face presentation, the most informative and posi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

133 ject-selective IT in response to unperceived fearful faces compared to unperceived nonface objects.

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

140 nconscious (backwardly masked) perception of fearful faces in healthy volunteers who varied in threat

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

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

153 Fearful faces significantly activated the amygdala in th

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

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

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

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

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

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

160 condition, but the left amygdala response to fearful faces was not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

173 usal connectivity models of sensitivity with fearful faces.

174 bilateral amygdala activation in response to fearful faces.

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

176 on and nonconscious processing of those same fearful faces.

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

178 manifested lesser right amygdala activity to fearful faces.

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

180 that mediate social cognition while viewing fearful faces.

181 er sensitivity to context when responding to fearful faces.

182 ally relevant visual information conveyed by fearful faces.

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

184 es during appraisal and subjective rating of fearful faces.

185 ior cingulate gyrus during the processing of fearful faces.

186 change in the explicit emotional ratings of fearful faces.

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

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

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

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

191 f a fearful voice facilitates recognition of fearful facial expression.

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

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

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

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

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

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

198 ala activation patterns during processing of fearful facial expressions.

199 respectively, by presentation of neutral or fearful facial expressions.

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

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

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

203 typal, paranoid), and the cluster C anxious, fearful group (obsessional, avoidant) became more pronou

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

211 The amygdala was more responsive to fearful (larger) eye whites than to happy (smaller) eye

212 2 tasks are quick to administer, involve no fearful learning associations, and require a simple appa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

221 are characterized by impaired extinction of fearful memories.

222 The dynamic of fearful memory consolidation is poorly understood.

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

224 keyboard stimulation of both appetitive and fearful motivations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

231 Almost 60% were fearful of falling.

232 Individuals who are fearful of novelty have a larger hypothalamic-pituitary-

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

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

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

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

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

238 sual or auditory) with emotional expression (fearful or happy), we show that perceptual facilitation

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

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

241 levant locations, while the faces had either fearful or neutral expressions.

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

243 Pairs of houses and faces (both fearful or neutral in expression) were presented, and pa

244 stically different percent signal change for fearful or nonexpressive faces compared with the happy f

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

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

247 Facial expressions were neutral, fearful, or disgusted.

248 onditioning to cues that predict aversive or fearful outcomes.

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

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

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

252 The fearful phenotype appears to be the result of hippocampa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

260 la in mediating this endophenotype and other fearful responses, we prepared monkeys with selective fi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

268 l magnetic resonance imaging, in response to fearful stimuli compared with individuals homozygous for

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

279 r cingulate cortex activation in response to fearful stimuli.

280 adigm that involved perceptual processing of fearful stimuli.

281 variants display low amygdala reactivity to fearful stimuli.

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

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

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

285 referred firing locations in response to the fearful stimulus.

286 ed with subjects who denied fear of falling, fearful subjects had longer walk times, more comorbid co

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

288 Right fusiform activity was greater for fearful than neutral faces, independently of the attenti

289 rd repetitions of a target, was stronger for fearful than neutral faces.

290 nificantly greater (P < 0.01) during OS with fearful than with neutral faces.

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

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

293 ed fMRI to assess whether brain responses to fearful versus neutral faces are modulated by spatial at

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

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

296 interested in how bimodal presentation of a fearful voice facilitates recognition of fearful facial

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