Search

The processing of reinforcers and punishers is crucial to adapt to an ever changing environment and its dysregulation is prevalent in mental health and substance use disorders. While many human brain measures related to reward have been based on activity in individual brain regions, recent studies indicate that many affective and motivational processes are encoded in distributed systems that span multiple regions. Consequently, decoding these processes using individual regions yields small effect sizes and limited reliability, whereas predictive models based on distributed patterns yield larger effect sizes and excellent reliability. To create such a predictive model for the processes of rewards and losses, termed the Brain Reward Signature (BRS), we trained a model to predict the signed magnitude of monetary rewards on the Monetary Incentive Delay task (MID; N = 39) and achieved a highly significant decoding performance (92% for decoding rewards versus losses). We subsequently demonstrate the generalizability of our signature on another version of the MID in a different sample (92% decoding accuracy; N = 12) and on a gambling task from a large sample (73% decoding accuracy, N = 1084). We further provided preliminary data to characterize the specificity of the signature by illustrating that the signature map generates estimates that significantly differ between rewarding and negative feedback (92% decoding accuracy) but do not differ for conditions that differ in disgust rather than reward in a novel Disgust-Delay Task (N = 39). Finally, we show that passively viewing positive and negatively valenced facial expressions loads positively on our signature, in line with previous studies on morbid curiosity. We thus created a BRS that can accurately predict brain responses to rewards and losses in active decision making tasks, and that possibly relates to information seeking in passive observational tasks.

Pathophysiological models are urgently needed for personalized treatments of mental disorders. However, most potential neural markers for psychopathology are limited by low interpretability, prohibiting reverse inference from brain measures to clinical symptoms and traits. Neural signatures—i.e. multivariate brain-patterns trained to be both sensitive and specific to a construct of interest—might alleviate this problem, but are rarely applied to mental disorders. We tested whether previously developed neural signatures for negative affect and discrete emotions distinguish between healthy individuals and those with mental disorders characterized by emotion dysregulation, i.e. Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) and complex Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (cPTSD). In three different fMRI studies, a total sample of 192 women (49 BPD, 62 cPTSD, 81 healthy controls) were shown pictures of scenes with negative or neutral content. Based on pathophysiological models, we hypothesized higher negative and lower positive reactivity of neural emotion signatures in participants with emotion dysregulation. The expression of neural signatures differed strongly between neutral and negative pictures (average Cohen's d = 1.17). Nevertheless, a mega-analysis on individual participant data showed no differences in the reactivity of neural signatures between participants with and without emotion dysregulation. Confidence intervals ruled out even small effect sizes in the hypothesized direction and were further supported by Bayes factors. Overall, these results support the validity of neural signatures for emotional states during fMRI tasks, but raise important questions concerning their link to individual differences in emotion dysregulation.

Linguistics is a relatively young field. The birth of a new, vibrant field of research often brings with it certain challenges such as the initial absence of an uncontroversial canon and a certain lack of terminological clarity. Following the example of closely allied disciplines, this work aims to register ambiguities in the use of ten terms in linguistics, with the overarching aim to aid field-internal coherence and field-external visibility. Among other issues, we discuss the influential ‘three factors’ model, labeling, reference, and E-/I-language. Addressing the challenge of looking back while moving forward, we compile a collection of definitions and/or presentations extracted from knowledge-rich contexts for each term, grounded in current usages. We first reflect on previous usages in order to present the first definitions of these terms and track terminological ambiguities that arose throughout their subsequent use. We then attempt to transition towards terminological clarity, providing specific recommendations for a more transparent use of these terms.