raw_transcripts/lecture_10.txt

Is.

This gone?

Can you hear me.

Out the back?

Yes.

Speak up.

Raise the volume.

And.

I'll just speak louder.

I can't see the volume switch on this.

Is it actually coming through the thing?

Kind of.

Or I'll just try and speak Labs.

Or is it?

I'm not here to help you understand how the brain

helps you love someone like this.

We're here to try and understand a bit about how

we might try and study emotions in the brain.

And to do that, we need to define emotions in

a way that make them scientifically tractable.

And this slide tries to help you do that.

I want to consider emotions that are consistent and discrete

responses to an event of significance.

We need something that's consistent.

We need them to be discrete if we're trying to

understand how they represent in the brain.

I will argue that emotions are important because they help

direct an appropriate course of action.

The most obvious thing in this case is threat.

If you're under threat, you want to fight.

You want to flee.

You need to elevate your blood pressure so that your

body is more prepared.

You need to change your galvanic skin resistance.

You actually need to redirect the blood supply to your

body.

You need to do a bunch of things that are

associated with sympathetic arousal.

It makes sense.

Then, if you start to feel an emotion of fear

that that is associated with a physiological response.

But emotions are also important because they help organise other

aspects of cognition, not just make your body ready for

a particular course of action.

They help you maybe remember things that help you pay

attention to particular aspects of your surroundings.

In humans, we know that emotions are associated with feelings

that might feel sad.

It's a bit hard to ask an animal what feelings

they have.

So we need to, when we study and want to

understand the neuroscience of emotions, we need to examine those

emotions or those aspects of emotions which are reportable, not

those which are subjective and unavailable to scientific analysis.

And I should just mention here that you find in

the literature the word affect and emotion or affective neuroscience

used interchangeably, and it's a little bit discombobulating for the

first few times to read that.

But you just need to think of ethics and emotion

as effectively meaning the same thing.

So there are many ways of describing emotions.

I like this and it is a very influential model

of how emotions can be represented.

This model was developed by asking several hundred, maybe even

thousands of participants in the early 1980s to describe the

relationships between different named emotions, which we'll see in a

second.

And effectively, the mathematical fallout of that experiment was that

most emotions or most emotional states that people recognise could

be described as lying along a space in a space

that's formed by two axes, the two dimensional space.

And those two axes are one of arousal.

So you can vary between being aroused and being sleepy

and one of balance that is between pleasure or positive

affect and misery or negative affect.

So these two axes, it turns out, as sufficient to

describe or at least to place most of the emotional

states that we encounter.

So if we put the various words that were used

in this analysis onto this space, they all kind of

make sense.

So, for example, when you have positive valence and high

arousal, emotions that are associated with those two things, for

example, excited or astonished or delighted and depending on the

relative balance of violence and arousal, you lie at different

points in this.

Similarly, if you have positive violence but low arousal, then

you might have things like serene content at ease, things

that are associated with low arousal but still positive.

So they lie down here, low valence, sorry, low arousal

and negative valence, on the other hand, means things like

sad, gloomy, depressed, those kinds of words.

And finally, high arousal and negative valence means things like

annoyed, afraid, fear.

So it makes sense, the space makes sense, and it's

become a very influential and powerful model for trying to

explain the relationships between different emotions.

And we'll be getting back to that in a in

a few slides time.

What I would like to provide you, though, with the

caveat is that it is still a matter of substantial

debate about whether emotions in the brain represented along these

two axes.

In other words, maybe you have one brain system that

focuses on arousal, another one that focuses on violence.

And together these two brain systems, for example, may represent

all the possible emotions or whether you have dedicated brain

systems for particular emotional states.

So those are the two contradictory hypotheses.

The evidence is still not in about which one describes

brain function better.

But this is a convenient way to think about the

different emotions and the relationship between them.

The study of emotions is had in cognition, and psychology

has had a long and checkered history.

Often called the folk perspective of emotions is the following.

There's a stimulus out there in the world.

We perceive it that then gives that perception and gives

rise to some form of emotional response.

And that emotional response in turn drives physiological actions like

increased blood pressure.

It's not to be pejorative to say this is a

folk explanation, but this is the typical one that we

might if we introspect.

Think about what happens.

This folk, so-called folk was challenged in the late 19th

century.

And indeed, a very popular theory from William James and

Carl Long, which I'll describe in a second, but which

is nicely described in this paragraph, not all of which

are read out.

I just want to highlight a particular sentence.

If I begin to tremble because I am threatened with

a loaded pistol.

That first person is to carry me.

Does terror arise?

And is that what causes my trembling confrontation of the

heart and confusion of thought?

Or are these bodily phenomenon produced directly by the terrifying

cause so that the emotion consists exclusively of the functional

disturbances in my body?

This is a long describing alternative way of looking at

how we start to experience the emotional event.

And in this kind of model, then the stimulus, for

example, a loaded pistol is perceived by axons of the

cerebral cortex.

That perception, in turn drives a physiological response, trembling, increased

blood pressure.

And the emotion that you experience is effectively you reading

out that visceral response with your brain.

I trembled, therefore, I am afraid.

A very popular and and still a model with some

some evidence we process it's the planted in the early

20th century by Canon Bard who suggested that instead of

this model which seemed to be inconsistent with some of

the measurements they were making instead the stimulus, this motor

pistol may still be perceived by the action of the

cerebral cortex, but then its perception of its action in

the cerebral cortex drove two distinct pathways.

In one pathway we get the emotional response and in

the other pathway we get the physiological response.

So this is kind of a parallel description, that descriptor

of emotions and the associated physiological responses arising in parallel

circuits.

And there's some evidence for and against this hypothesis as

described here.

Finding this insufficient to describe some of the experiments of

the kind that you would only probably do in the

1970s sector.

And seeing I came up with a slightly different way

of describing this process that is that that stimulus to

load a pistol again leads to perception again in the

cerebral cortex.

But this then drives a physiological response and there is

a contextual modulation of that and those things are read

out to provide the motion.

So for example, in the famous experiment conducted here, participants

were given an injection of adrenaline, which increases blood pressure.

And then were asked to describe their emotional state.

And some partisans describe it as being excited and aroused.

And others did not.

And it turned out that the particular label, the emotional

state that the people gave, depended on the context in

which they were provided.

That arousing steam was that increase in blood pressure.

So the blood pressure itself was actually generating.

You did seem to be reading that out as a

kind of emotional state, but the label that you attached

to it was that dependent on the context that you

found yourself in.

So this is where we found ourselves in the late

1970s and 1980s.

Not much has changed too much because we haven't had

a huge amount of evidence to decide among these different

alternatives.

It turns out it's quite difficult to study the analysis

of emotions in the brain.

And indeed, almost all the work that we have or

the understanding that we have come from the study of

a very particular brain area, the amygdala.

And we'll be spending a lot of this lecture on

that area to give you a bit of context for

understanding the brain of the amygdala.

I need to introduce you to the limbic system hypothesis.

Has anyone come across the limbic system before?

I presume you have.

Who has not?

Is a few of you who has as a few

more of you, would someone care to describe to me

what you understand the limbic system to be?

The description on here without reading that out.

Back when you when you were talking about the Olympics

this summer, when you encountered it, what did you imagine

it to be?

Yes.

You know.

So the general idea is the limbic system is this

kind of state of something that drives your emotional states.

The kind of larger idea is that the limbic system

that's common, by the way, and if you do study

clinical psychology, you find a lot of clinical psychology still

uses this, what shall we say, simplistic description of the

brain to understand some of the descriptions that I want

to make.

The kind of larger idea is that the limbic system

seemed to evolve long ago.

It's part of the history of our evolution and that

during evolution we have supplanted or added to this limbic

system things like the cerebral cortex and the expansion of

the cerebral cortex in humans.

The idea being that this ancient reptilian brain, which has

continued to be there even as we have evolved and

added in all these other systems.

So the kind of first idea that you have sometimes

the limbic system is this is this ancient pathway or

part of the brain that evolved in reptiles and lower

animals is preserved, still is unconscious, or we have no

access or awareness of its activity, but it drives our

emotions and cognitions.

That, I think, is the kind of idea of the

limbic system that we usually have.

I think know, by the way, that the limbic system,

which is a circuit which includes the hypothalamus, anterior thalamus,

the finger gyrus and we'll get on to that in

the next slide, has over the years had things attached

to it.

So for example, the amygdala, the septum, the orbitofrontal cortex

and portions of the basal ganglia, turns out, as we

see in the next slide.

That first time that basically the limbic system now encompasses

much of the brain and I think its explanatory power

is therefore substantially reduced.

There's other reasons to think that this explanatory power is

not very strong, and that is that actually the idea

that we have evolved on top of this limbic system

is not really a correct reading of evolution.

So this is a graphical description.

By the way, I encourage you to read this article

because it has perhaps the best I've ever seen.

Your brain is not an onion with a tiny reptile

inside.

The classic view of the limbic system.

It's kind of described amber here.

The idea is that evolution is the fishes evolve into

rodents, evolve into humans, and that fishes, which have this

pronounced limbic system, which is still substantially preserved in mass

and then only slightly elaborate and then slightly inverted, sorry,

and then further elaborated in humans that this limbic system

we've inherited from this ancestor.

That's not how evolution works.

We are not so linearly related.

We are not the end product of the chain of

evolution whose goal is to create stupid human beings.

Instead, evolution is a series of parallel processes, and indeed

we diverge from the evolutionary lineage that links us with

fishes.

Before my did.

And indeed, if you look at the brains of each

of these three different species, species, humans and mice, you

actually find shared components there in all the systems more

pronounced or less pronounced in different species, but still same

components.

So the idea that this limbic system is something that

was the kind of entirety of the cognitive system of

teachers and sits there in that sort of unconscious awareness

in ourselves is not really an accurate description of evolution

nor of the brain structure of these animals or ourselves.

So for that reason, I would argue that the idea

of thinking the limbic system has only limited value.

Nevertheless, this is the limbic system and in particular the

circuit here, which you can read about in your letter.

But the idea here is that there's a circuit, as

I said before, the single cortex, the hippocampus, the hypothalamus

and the anterior thalamus missing the four words or working

together in a circuit to produce some emotional state.

This was the state of play in the 1970s, 1980s.

It's now been largely supplanted mainly by studying particular brain

areas such as the amygdala.

And and we'll go through that in the next set

of the lecture.

Before I get on to that, I just want to

make a digression into understanding emotions through emotional phases, because

most of us communicate our emotions through our facial expressions,

and most of us understand the emotions of others by

looking at this facial expressions.

This seems to be the major route through which we

communicate emotions, and also animals can also recognise and communicate

emotions through similar facial expressions.

Turns out that you can actually train computer programs to

recognise categorise very accurately the emotions that people might be

experiencing by simply reading the visual image of their face.

This was now a few years ago.

This particular one technology is substantially improved, but effectively the

kinds of neural networks that bound artificial intelligence that are

bound in our world now are quite capable of using

images of you through your video camera and your computer

or your phone to read, or at least try and

classify your emotional state.

And they do this, unfortunately, very accurately, not always accurately,

but pretty accurately.

That is, there is a set of facial configurations that

we all seem to share when we experience certain emotions.

We've actually known that for a long time.

It's these lovely photos doing the work of Titian in

the mid 19th century who discovered one of the very

first uses of electricity in experimental science discovered that you

can actually create facial expressions on individuals simply by stimulating

particular groups of muscles on the face.

So these in this picture here, this is Dustin.

Again, we don't really do experiments like this anymore, unfortunately.

Maybe.

But these are little electrical stimulating devices being attached to

the muscles.

I told you many lectures ago, the muscles of the

other electrically excitable cell in the body of the nerve

cells.

And it turns out that by passing current into muscles,

we cause them to contract.

And if we cause these contractions in particular muscle groups

in the face, we can provide these things that look

like almost realistic expressions, fear, smiles, etc..

The point I want you to take from this is

that the organisation of the facial muscles seems to be

such that it simplifies and allows expression of emotion through

expressions.

We seem to have developed our face muscles for that

purpose.

Sometime later, Ekman and colleagues discovered that there was actually

a proposal and then provided evidence for the hypothesis that

there are actually universal emotional faces that we can all

recognise, and that we may all just claim that largely

the these emotional faces, the six faces.

So the universally accepted is universal and another couple that

are more controversial.

If you look at these posed actor that faces anger,

fear, disgust, surprise, happiness, sadness.

You should or maybe not, but you should probably recognise

the same expressions and the emotions in those expressions in

work that my wife just published actually yesterday in the

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

She challenges this distinction.

Turns out that actually these posed acted out expressions are

not very good ways of testing, emotional recognition, and that

if we allow each other to evolve the expressions in

images, devolve the expressions that we think relate to anger

or fear or sadness.

It turns out we can evolve very divergent expressions.

There is many commonalities, but there's a lot of differences

such that two individual people may recognise the one face,

for example, this one here as two different emotions fear

or surprise might be.

However, the reason that Ackman's work became so popular and

influential is that these studies conducted in groups of people

who had had limited cultural contact with other parts of

the world.

In this case, the tribesmen of Papua New Guinea, a

small island just north of the Queensland in Australia, very

densely vegetated, a lot of hills and valleys.

A number of tribes within them who had had very,

very limited contact with any part of the Western world,

even in the 1970s.

And this famous study sought to see whether or not

the facial expressions they produce were similar to those that

we in the West might produce for similar kinds of

emotional states.

And the conclusion was that they were indeed suggesting that

it's not just about cultural conformity or spread of between

different cultures.

That leads us to a commonality in our facial expressions

and emotions, but actually that these are something innate, all

inbuilt in humans.

If we try to put these universal of emotions on

that axis of arousal and violence that we described earlier,

we find that actually, somewhat surprisingly, almost all of them

are associated with higher arousal.

I'm not exactly sure why this is.

I have a feeling that these emotions that I'm feeling,

the emotions that are associated with high arousal that are

most important for us to communicate and for us to

respond to.

It also turns out that the way that we make

these expressions depends on somewhat different brain systems, or at

least a couple of different brain systems.

That's, well, well-established in looking at people with small brain

lesions in appropriate parts of the brain.

And you can see here the two types of emotional

paralysis that you can see in people with these small

lesions, one brain called facial motor paralysis, that's one on

the left here.

The other emotional motor paralysis and emotional motor paralysis.

People have very much difficulty forming the actual expression associated

with an emotion.

In face of murder paralysis.

Since dead people have difficulty in forming emotions if they

are asked to generate that emotion without the appropriate stimulus.

Whereas if they had provided an appropriate stimulus, they can

actually produce a smile.

And the inference from this work is that there's two

strains of facial emotion, a volitional system and law of

Matic system.

And the automatic system is one that includes the hypothalamus,

the amygdala in the frontal cortex, i.e. the limbic system

or its components.

So I want to introduce that because this is the

normal way that we trying to out someone else's emotional

state is to look at the facial expressions or to

communicate.

The emotional state is through that.

And we're going to spend a little bit of time

in the next part of the lecture going through some

of the mechanisms that might be important in trying to

bring these two things together the recognition of textual emotions

and the production of emotion through responses.

So we mentioned the amygdala before.

It's part of the enlarged to kind of larger limbic

system, not the original one.

It was actually discovered in the late 1930s, early 1940s

by Coover and Bucy, who did some experiments on monkeys

in which they removed large fractions of the temporal lobes.

And they discovered very complex behavioural changes in these animals,

including noses, sexuality, inappropriate eating and the lack of fluency

in the constellation of these symptoms is often called Clifford

syndrome.

Now these were very large lesions appropriate to the surgical

techniques at the time.

It took several decades before more improved surgical techniques could

remove smaller parts of the brain.

And asked the same kind of questions.

And indeed, it was Larry Weiss Prince, who's a very

famous and important neurosurgeon, who discovered that by removing a

little bit of the brain called the amygdala, amygdala means

almond.

So it's an almond shaped part of the brain.

But by removing this component, you could reproduce the emotional

symptoms that these animals had experienced.

So this part of the brain, the amygdala from then

on became a very much of the focus for trying

to understand how emotions are represented in the brain.

The other paradigm I want to introduce you to is

that that's been popularised by Joe LeDoux.

Joe to do is at New York University.

He developed and continues to use this paradigm called conditioned

fear.

Now.

I saw Joe.

I invited Joe to give a lecture once, and at

the end of the lecture, I'm about to describe to

you the condition of the part.

On the end of the lecture, someone asked, Have you

ever thought of doing another type of experiment rather than

this conditioned fear?

And his answer was briefly, no.

He said no.

And I get asked that question all the time.

The reason I like this paradigm and why I continue

to use it is that I can predict now the

experience of every animal.

I don't need to do the actual behavioural experiment any

more.

This is such a reproducible behavioural experience experiment that it's

no longer necessary to conduct experiments on animals to actually

look at the behaviour itself.

You can just assume that that is what would have

happened and conduct other measurements that would look at the

neuroscience involved in that.

But conditioned fear in paradigms in love cells which are

incredibly powerful, are very simple.

The basic idea is to put an animal, a rat

usually, or a mouse in a little box, and that

box will have a little grid on the floor and

a little speaker on the wall.

And through the grid, you can pass the small amount

of current that's aversive to the animal, although not actually

painful.

And if you put current through that grid, the animal

will generally freeze.

It's an aversive stimulus, a potentially threatening stimulus.

Now, if you play the sound in of itself before

you without pairing it with that electric stroke, the animal

generally maybe the first time and he was like, what

the hell is going on there?

But very rapidly habituate and then ignores the sound because

it's a neutral, unthreatening stimulus.

However, if you pair or associate that sound with the

electric shock over several trials, the animals then replay the

sound by itself.

The animal is now displays just the reactions that it

would have otherwise displayed to the electric shock.

In other words, it freezes.

So this is a condition.

It's a classic paradigm.

It's been used to elucidate the role of the media.

It's not necessary to do this only in mice or

rats.

You can also do this in humans.

I love this video.

I'm dying to know.

That we have.

Period of classical conditioning I'm trying to get.

This will be the same thing.

And then I've got experience with this.

We learn the relationship.

Between a sounds and it's got more of a super.

Duper so that we can take for are going to

look like that.

Mastery works so you don't need to use rats.

You can use humans.

Let down some ethics people.

Okay.

So this.

Yes, it's a very good question.

And actually fear is the wrong this is what's what.

The conversation goes around every about ten or 15 years.

We just keep on going around the circles.

The question is, is there an emotional response or is

the animal responding to the potential threat?

Okay, so distinguishing between those two hypotheses is almost impossible.

So there's a subjective ness to fear as a concept

that we can't explore in a rat.

So this goes around and around.

Is is fear simply described as a response to a

threat or is it something in addition to that?

And unfortunately, there's been no resolution of that particular discussion.

You do know that the animal is exhibiting all the

signs of having had of of experiencing a potential threat.

Now, whether that is associated with fear in and of

itself is another question.

So it is a good question and unresolved still.

And it goes around this discussion goes around in the

in the field every ten or 15 years because it

threatens the threat of external stimuli.

So the internal response.

So the amygdala is central to to, as Joe has

worked so extensively, is essential to understanding this responses they

may do is actually have quite a complicated nucleus.

It's consists of at least 13 subdivisions.

We tend to ignore all of them except for two

or three.

The two or three that we're usually interested in, the

lateral nucleus, the basal nucleus and the central nucleus.

Usually, indeed, we actually ignore the base of the nucleus

and just think of the lateral, the central nucleus.

The lateral nucleus is where all this sensory input comes

into the amygdala from the cerebral cortex and from other

parts of the brain.

And central nucleus is the output of the one that

goes in control.

The physiological responses.

There are other outputs from amygdala, from the other parts

of it, which instead of controlling physiological responses, actually project

back to, for example, the cerebral cortex.

And we'll go through that briefly at the end in

humans, the images found around here.

In rats.

It's a slightly different location.

So this schematic turns the outcome of two or three

decades of work from Joe and others, which tells how

you might generate this condition.

Fear response.

We think of the condition stimulus as a sound stimulus.

It's conditioned because it's otherwise neutral, and then it gets

conditioned and then there's an unconditioned stimulus or us, which

is the future.

It's unconditioned.

In other words, the response to that stimulus is an

innate response is an instinctive response you don't have to

associate to get that response.

If you play the conditioned stimulus and the unconditioned stimulus

together, sound and food shock, the signals from these two

things are coming through the auditory pathway and through the

similar sensory pathways.

And these signals converge at the level of the lateral

nucleus in the amygdala.

So you have sound inputs coming through, somatic sensory inputs

coming through together.

These can now work together to find mechanisms of synaptic

plasticity to now convert that or allow that sound stimulus

to cause the same physiological response to the unconditioned stimulus

would have otherwise.

And then that output is then provided by the central

nutrients.

Now, you'll note here that there's actually several potential sources

of input to the amygdala, including the cerebral cortex, but

also subcortical areas such as Solomon's.

And it turns out that that's quite important for understanding

some of the reactions that we animals have to people

or other threatening stimuli.

So, for example, one of the early studies from Joe

showed that auditory cortex was not required for responding in

this condition fear, paranoia.

So if you remember before, when we were talking about

versus theories of emotional response, the idea was that you

perceive the stimulus with your cerebral cortex, and then that

generates that cascades through into other events.

What does work started is that at least in rodents

and as we'll see in a minute or so in

humans.

You don't need the cerebral cortex to respond to these

threatening events, suggesting that some of these threatening events could

be communicated to the amygdala via pathways that have no

access to perception or cognition themselves that are below the

level of awareness.

The particular experiments here were to lesion the bit to

the auditory cortex of the retinas, the way the auditory

cortex is in the rat.

And then to put them in this condition fear paradigm

and to measure several variables, including the freezing response, but

also things like blood pressure increases and so forth, and

become long story short.

Effectively, all the components of the threat, response or fear

response in rats were preserved in those animals that had

auditory cortex and didn't have auditory cortex.

In other words, cortex was not required for the animals

to exhibit this condition.

Fear that suggests that subcortical pathways are sufficient.

And indeed, the dominant hypothesis from Joe and others now

is that there are two votes for sensory input to

the amygdala.

One that goes through the thalamus and one that goes

through the cerebral cortex.

So for example, in human brain, the visual thalamus is

here, this blue blob.

The visual cortex is here.

The back of the brain and the amygdala.

It's here down the temporal lobe.

There are some either direct or indirect inputs from the

thalamus to the media, as well as inputs from the

visual cortex, but indirect and direct.

And the idea here is the central idea here is

that for some kinds of stimuli that you need, a

rapid response to those stimuli might be included in this

pathway that simply requires the farmers.

So, for example, snakes on a path in front of

you, you don't want to hit this guy.

It was like a snake.

Maybe it's a tiger snake round snake.

Instead, you want to get out of the way.

Actually, literally, you should freeze.

Many people try to get out of the way, but

if you get out of the way, they'll come for

you actually should just freeze.

That's one of the life tips you learn in Australia.

So the snake is there.

Maybe the signals for the snake were actually passed through

this thalamic pathway, this rapid pathway, the middle rather than

through the cerebral cortex, requires a perception that you can

react to that snake without actually having perceived it yourself.

It's sometimes called the high road and the low road,

the low road from the thalamus to move to the

highway through the sensory cortex.

And that's basically what I've just told you.

In humans, there is some evidence, as in rodents, there

is some evidence that the pathways are sufficient to activate

the amygdala.

This is a fascinating study of a person with blind

sight.

We discussed neglect, a couple of lecture lectures, go blind

sites of different phenomena.

If you lose part of your central cortex, you become

blind spot that you're not unaware of something like this.

You neglecting something be actually, at least according to people

who have these lesions you experience as an absence, a

blackness.

Basically in the US, in that part of the visual

world, people with lesions, the visual cortex report not being

able to perceive anything in the appropriate part of the

visual world.

So, for example, if your lesion on the left part

of your visual cortex, you won't see anything on the

right path of your visual field.

Nevertheless, people with these lesions can still respond appropriately, sometimes

to visual objects presented in that blind part of the

visual field.

A fascinating phenomena.

For example, they can actually navigate through obstacles in a

corridor or tell or actually respond reliably and see what

orientation opinions operate or mind to assign.

In addition, if you put someone in the scanner and

MRI scanner and conduct measurements whilst this person's images in

this case facial images of facial expressions, you can find

that in this part of the brain where the least

means this is a simple cortex is lesion.

The image was nevertheless activated by in this case, people

faces.

So for some reason or some pathway that bypasses visual

cortex, the primary visual cortex allows people to actually get

see moving to the Middle East.

Similarly, in humans with an intact amygdala, you can do

experiments such as backward masking this as you rapidly present

a stimulus and mask it with noise.

People report not being able to see the stimulus that

was presented briefly present a stimulus.

Turns out if you do that and you construct the

stimulus appropriately, you can find different.

You can find responses in the amygdala in mind that

seem to resemble fearful faces.

This is also evidence that you do not need perception

or cognition to actually activate.

So this is evidence that even in humans, as in

rats, there is some subcortical pathways as well as cortical

pathways.

And indeed, if you look at facial mimicry, when we

see people make expressions, we tend to make those expressions

ourselves.

That's called facial mimicry.

You find that facial mimicry is intact in people with

blind side.

Again, further evidence that you don't need to perceive things

to be able to detect and respond to emotions.

There is some.

Caveats.

This thing you should be aware of.

For example, there are very few people in the world

who have had lesions to the amygdala in the one

or two cases that have been studied does not seem

that this is 100% necessary to respond to emotions.

But bear in mind, as we talk about methods lecture

that people with lesions can find compensatory pathways and things

do change.

So it's not clear whether or not these kinds of

responses are true in intact humans.

I want to spend a couple of minutes just illustrating

to you that these emotional networks, such as the amygdala,

impact not only the physiological output, but also other cognitive

processing in the brain.

It turns out actually, that the amygdala is either directly

or indirectly connected to a huge amount of the brain

striatum prefrontal cortex, medial temporal lobe, cerebellum, pixabay neocortex, etc.

There's plenty of opportunity for the amygdala to guide our

cognition via emotional responses, in instance of time.

Because I would just like to introduce something for a

few minutes at the end of this lecture.

I'll skip over these two little slides, but you can

go back to look at them at your leisure.

I want to focus on this one, which describes an

experiment that could have already really been done once or

twice in our history.

As you all know, on September the 11th, 2001, perhaps

before you were born, the Twin Towers in New York,

the World Trade Centre, were destroyed in a terrorist attack.

This was a very emotional experience for many people.

My wife, for example, was based in New York University

at the time.

She stood on the top of the building and watched

those towers come down.

She still remembers that day very clearly.

The question that was asked in these experiments by researchers

whose prioritisation might be slightly strange was the day after

2001 researchers in Duke University.

Contact of Duke students.

The Duke is not New York itself.

Nevertheless, everyone of us was kind of watching these these

attacks and ask very simple questions.

Do you remember what do you remember about the events

on September 11th?

And what do you remember about other unrelated events?

The idea is that these events on September 11th might

be associated with flashbulb memories, things that are emotionally salient.

And the question is, do these emotionally salient events last

longer than nonstate ones, and do they have different content,

the most salient ones?

The answer to the first question is yes.

They seem to be more vivid for longer than non

emotionally salient events.

So these on this graph on the left here for

224 days after September 11th, these ratings were made, some

people for September 11th or other events.

You can see that the vividness for the subjective experience

of remembering events around September 11th was much greater than

that for other events, suggesting that emotion colours, memory, makes

things vivid, makes things more memorable.

On the other hand, the actual number of details that

we were able those people were able to remember about

the 11th and other events didn't seem to be much

different.

So what's the vividness and therefore importance of that memory

for people was higher.

The actual structure, the clarity of that memory was not

necessarily higher.

This has importance for understanding things like, for example, eyewitness

testimony.

So what I wanted to bring you here is that

clearly emotion does colour memory does it in complex ways.

Does this suggest that those circuits within the amygdala and

similar structures influence aspects of the hippocampus and other formation?

The final slide I want to show you simply reinforces

that by looking at some imaging studies.

But I will just mean the time link to go

through that yourself.

Q Would you like to just come down and help

people understand what we want you to do during your

reading week?

So thanks for that.

I hope we've both understood it.

Something about emotions and the brain.

I can't tell you about life, but we can tell

you about one of those things anyway, right?

Q Do.

You think you're going to find something to that.

Effect?

I don't think.

So, but I'm just going to take us through the

process of feedback for this module.

Before I do that, I just would like to take

on you had this lecture and it could take good

care of your brain and your amygdala otherwise ends up

in lots of dangerous situations.

Has anyone seen Die Another Day?

Great James Bond film from the mid-nineties.

Robert Carlyle.

Okay, can watch that.

Yeah.

So the best thing most I think if we see

one of these patients who has no MC to their

fitness emerges loving, playing dangerous snakes and tarantulas and whatever,

there's there's this lack of inhibition and we'll be picking

up that topic in lectures following this.

And the memory system is sound is just getting onto

memory at the end there.

And we'll be looking at methods where they've been able

to implant false memories into rats brains, where they can

turn on the memory, the flash of light, using that

fear conditioning approach and make rats afraid of places that

are completely normal, but they've just inserted false memories.

So we'll come back to that as the great play

into that memory circuits.

So this is the Moodle page for the module.

Just highlighting that we think is yeah.

The different modes.

You can do it.

It's fantastic.

Exactly.

Because a lot of hidden material behind the lectures.

Okay, so there's a keep in touch and we've been

able to look.

At these.

Questions here and we put announcements there and we've got

questions.

People have put in great questions and we'll try to

respond to those through the announcements page.

This is for general questions.

If something comes to you and you want to ask

a general question about the course, feel free to throw

a question into that for each the each of the

weeks from, let's say further onwards is a a at

the end of this fits with this class times is

reading and there.

Are.

Questions about lectures to feel free against remind everyone if

you have a question that pops up after reading maybe

in the middle of reading week or reading material and

you think, Oh, looking back at lectures for next week

for don't post the question in to that.

I will respond to that.

We'll see these.

But really today is the highlight right at the end

is a now exceptional have you would say and we'd

like to get your feedback through the key to have

this continuous module dialogue you still loves acronyms C and

D approach to the.

Module and.

There is now a link to a mental page where

you can go, I want to go.

Now.

Yeah.

It needs to work.

So it's currently sitting in there.

It's still running, but it needs to be updated.

So after this lecture we'll get that functioning.

If you can go in and answer the questions.

Have you understood things?

How do you say what are the things for this

course?

Is that within this large room there are people from

psychology, so you might have different perspectives to people inside

psychology.

It may be useful to get your reflections on this

module compared to other modules you're setting, but it will

be all of the questions.

And that means that you can go in and access

from that link.

In a couple of weeks we'll have another mentor as

you going forwards, more CMC approach, more, more feedback from

you and at the end, surprise, surprise, another mentee page

for feedback.

If you're in any module and I'm sure you're used

to filling out these mentees, but we'd love to hear

from you.

We've had great we've had some useful suggestions on the

page and we'll keep collecting that.

Thank you for all your attendance and enjoying the module.

We'll see you next week.

So there is a lot of great work to do,

but a lot.

Great.

It's a really good question.

It's pretty pretty.

Hard to talk about what's.

Going to.

Happen next week.

Right.

That's because.

It doesn't make.

Sense to.

Keep people from actually able to pick up the phone

call for a living.

Record the next.

It's hard to record the next question.

I found it on the floor of someone to drop

it so we can hand it.

To the psychology man office or.

The main.

Office.

That's the most likely outcome.

Of that discussion.

Yeah, I could just make an announcement.

I mean.

Although if anybody's lost a phone, we found a mobile

phone.

Here, We'll put it in the reception's.

If anybody is walking out and somebody is running back.

That phone will be in the reception for the building.

I mean.

Maybe not so lucky for people who.

Would.

Like.

To see.

Different things.

I do.

Think.

That it's tricky because it's the only way for people

to think that.

That's pretty cool.

I think.

That's absolutely.

Great.

School teaching is not acceptable.

I think things like that.

Very nice to talk to you for a few hours

because sometimes it's a part of the whole.

I want to get some stuff because I don't care

about 15 minutes per 100,000 people.

Because.

People trying to get me to actually try to keep

something that's interesting because I'm focusing.

On you to.

Come to.

You.

Normally you have to start.

To.

Some of.

These private firms to pick these people.

You can.

Make more people want.

To let go.

Why not?

Well, that's.

How.

It lots of things.

You can.

Do about that perspective.

Because unfortunately, it's impossible to get people to look at.

What's going on here.

Yeah, we get really we.

Get feedback to people about the course of events, just

everything updates and you can put that in as a

feedback you'd like.

Stephen That's what I'd like to say.

A lot of.

Students don't want to understand that either, but apparently the

feedback from.

Feedback.

That might.

Be difficult.

For the general nominee is that people get a quick

look at time frames when this happens, but that's a.

Time that it's.

One that might be that may be the case, but

that it's actually you can see back into the things

that we can use that to say, Hey, you look

like you want me to do videos, basically, but.

You don't have.

To do it.

Some of it might take these guys.

Yeah, except this is six years of research.

That's some of.

The material, but not what you want to do to

make.

This work.

Yeah, it's not.

Material.

Why didn't I get a first.

Bite of this?

And I didn't say that.

That's the problem.

It's kind of really happened since, Mr. President.

So I said, Well, I originally said that any on

the day would have been.

The school.

But she's not accepting.

What's been happening in Iraq.

And the way you.

Might.

Have noticed.

The really useful question.

It's good to get feedback about how you doing things

differently, doing something right.

Yeah.

Yeah, I know.

I'm just I'm just hoping that by pinpointing very quickly

that these kind of theories, we do.

Have a lot of people out there who might be

eager.

To meet with individuals, something to discuss how to give

some solutions.

Access We really hate that.

It's the men's lives work, stuff like that.

Yeah, I just.

That because we're not going to make it.

But, you know, I think that there is not much

concern about this because the problem.