ArticleSocial cognitive and affective neuroscience2020
Comparing three models of arousal in the human brain.
Article in Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neural network dynamics associated with facial and subjective emotional responses.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Neural Sensitivity to the Heartbeat Is Modulated by Fluctuations in Affective Arousal during Spontaneous Thought.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- Self-compassion mediates the influence of mindfulness on subsequent self-forgiveness in a Polish sample.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Neural sensitivity to the heartbeat is modulated by fluctuations in affective arousal during spontaneous thought.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Dissociating Affective Salience and Valence in (Very) Long-Latency ERPs.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
- Left Insula and Right Middle Temporal Gyrus Dominate Cortical Network Discriminating Arousal-dependent Emotions.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Arousal may not be anything to get excited about.Emotion review : journal of the International Society for Research on Emotion · 2025Article
- ANCW: Affective norms for 4030 Chinese words.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Understanding human amygdala function with artificial neural networks.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Brain networks subserving functional core processes of emotions identified with componential modeling.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2023Article
- The representation of emotion knowledge across development.Child development · 2022Article
- A network model of affective odor perception.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The bipolar valence-arousal model is assumed by many to be an underlying structure of conscious experience of core affect and emotion. In this work, we compare three versions of the bipolar valence-arousal model at the neural domain, using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Specifically, we systematically contrast three models of arousal: model 1-'arousal as a separate quale from valence', model 2-'arousal as intensity of bipolar valence' and model 3-'arousal as a linear combination of unipolar pleasant and unpleasant'. Using parametric modulation analysis, we estimated the ability of each model to predict activation in arousal-related brain regions, in response to affective stimuli. The results suggest that arousal is not separable from valence in its ability to predict arousal-related neural activity. The relevance of the results to the theory of conscious affect is discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.