TMS over the superior temporal sulcus affects expressivity evaluation of portraits.

Chiara Ferrari, Susanna Schiavi, Zaira Cattaneo
Author Information
  1. Chiara Ferrari: Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Piazza dell' Ateneo Nuovo,1, 20126, Milano, Italy. chiara.ferrari@unimib.it.
  2. Susanna Schiavi: Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Piazza dell' Ateneo Nuovo,1, 20126, Milano, Italy.
  3. Zaira Cattaneo: Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Piazza dell' Ateneo Nuovo,1, 20126, Milano, Italy.

Abstract

When viewing a portrait, we are often captured by its expressivity, even if the emotion depicted is not immediately identifiable. If the neural mechanisms underlying emotion processing of real faces have been largely clarified, we still know little about the neural basis of evaluation of (emotional) expressivity in portraits. In this study, we aimed at assessing-by means of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)-whether the right superior temporal sulcus (STS) and the right somatosensory cortex (SC), that are important in discriminating facial emotion expressions, are also causally involved in the evaluation of expressivity of portraits. We found that interfering via TMS with activity in (the face region of) right STS significantly reduced the extent to which portraits (but not other paintings depicting human figures with faces only in the background) were perceived as expressive, without, though, affecting their liking. In turn, interfering with activity of the right SC had no impact on evaluating either expressivity or liking of either paintings' category. Our findings suggest that evaluation of emotional cues in artworks recruit (at least partially) the same neural mechanisms involved in processing genuine biological others. Moreover, they shed light on the neural basis of liking decisions in art by art-naïve people, supporting the view that aesthetic appreciation relies on a multitude of factors beyond emotional evaluation.

Keywords

References

  1. Neuroimage. 2009 Jan 15;44(2):569-80 [PMID: 18852053]
  2. Trends Cogn Sci. 2016 Mar;20(3):227-240 [PMID: 26876363]
  3. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2016 Aug;16(4):626-34 [PMID: 27012713]
  4. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e37285 [PMID: 22624007]
  5. Brain Res. 2016 Sep 1;1646:98-108 [PMID: 27235869]
  6. Front Psychol. 2013 Mar 07;4:107 [PMID: 23471005]
  7. J Cogn Neurosci. 2003 Oct 1;15(7):948-60 [PMID: 14614806]
  8. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014 Jul;18(7):370-5 [PMID: 24768244]
  9. Hum Brain Mapp. 2015 Feb;36(2):619-32 [PMID: 25327821]
  10. Brain Cogn. 2009 Jun;70(1):84-91 [PMID: 19223099]
  11. Nat Commun. 2017 Apr 21;8:14821 [PMID: 28429707]
  12. Vision Res. 2005 Oct;45(22):2847-53 [PMID: 16039692]
  13. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Apr 20;101(16):6321-5 [PMID: 15079079]
  14. Cereb Cortex. 2016 Jan;26(1):156-65 [PMID: 25165063]
  15. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2001 Oct;12(2):225-31 [PMID: 11587892]
  16. Psychiatry Res. 2013 Oct 30;209(3):554-9 [PMID: 23601793]
  17. Perception. 2013;42(12):1311-32 [PMID: 24649634]
  18. J Neurosci. 2015 Jan 14;35(2):731-8 [PMID: 25589766]
  19. Front Psychol. 2017 Feb 24;8:228 [PMID: 28286487]
  20. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2011 Jun 12;366(1571):1726-38 [PMID: 21536556]
  21. Brain Cogn. 2014 Jun;87:52-6 [PMID: 24704947]
  22. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015 Apr 28;9:218 [PMID: 25972799]
  23. J Neurosci. 2008 Sep 3;28(36):8929-33 [PMID: 18768686]
  24. Network. 2007 Sep;18(3):235-48 [PMID: 17852751]
  25. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2003 Apr;13(2):159-66 [PMID: 12744968]
  26. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2014 Nov;9(11):1713-21 [PMID: 24132459]
  27. Cogn Neurosci. 2017 Jan;8(1):59-68 [PMID: 26429631]
  28. Eur J Neurosci. 2004 Dec;20(12):3507-15 [PMID: 15610183]
  29. J Cogn Neurosci. 2017 Feb;29(2):221-234 [PMID: 27991030]
  30. J Neurosci. 2000 Apr 1;20(7):2683-90 [PMID: 10729349]
  31. J Cogn Neurosci. 2010 May;22(5):903-17 [PMID: 19320549]
  32. Neuropsychologia. 2007 Nov 5;45(14):3234-41 [PMID: 17707444]
  33. Iperception. 2012;3(1):1-17 [PMID: 23145263]
  34. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2013 Jun;23(3):450-5 [PMID: 23266245]
  35. Emotion. 2011 Dec;11(6):1456-61 [PMID: 21604875]
  36. Neuroreport. 2004 Apr 9;15(5):893-7 [PMID: 15073538]
  37. Neuroimage. 2003 Sep;20(1):84-97 [PMID: 14527572]
  38. Clin Neurophysiol. 2011 Aug;122(8):1686 [PMID: 21227747]
  39. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2016 Apr;1369(1):172-94 [PMID: 27037898]
  40. Exp Brain Res. 2010 Jul;204(3):447-56 [PMID: 20473752]
  41. Behav Brain Res. 2005 Feb 28;157(2):195-204 [PMID: 15639170]
  42. Neuropsychologia. 2018 Jul 31;116(Pt A):86-98 [PMID: 29410266]
  43. Neuroimage. 2013 Feb 1;66:288-92 [PMID: 23123681]
  44. Brain. 2017 Apr 1;140(4):1086-1099 [PMID: 28334943]
  45. Front Hum Neurosci. 2012 Nov 16;6:311 [PMID: 23162456]
  46. Neuropsychologia. 2011 Apr;49(5):992-998 [PMID: 21281653]
  47. J Neurosci. 2016 Apr 20;36(16):4434-42 [PMID: 27098688]
  48. Phys Life Rev. 2017 Jul;21:80-125 [PMID: 28347673]
  49. PLoS One. 2014 Mar 26;9(3):e90876 [PMID: 24670316]
  50. Brain. 2007 Mar;130(Pt 3):610-22 [PMID: 17138570]
  51. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2015 Mar;10(3):342-51 [PMID: 24771282]
  52. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2013 May;67(4):210-8 [PMID: 23683151]
  53. Brain Cogn. 2015 Apr;95:44-53 [PMID: 25682351]
  54. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2016 Mar;11(2):265-79 [PMID: 26993278]
  55. Cortex. 2015 Sep;70:101-14 [PMID: 26211433]
  56. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 May 14;7:185 [PMID: 23675338]
  57. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016 Mar;62:56-68 [PMID: 26698020]
  58. Neuroimage. 2014 Oct 1;99:443-50 [PMID: 24857715]
  59. Cereb Cortex. 2010 Apr;20(4):759-72 [PMID: 19641017]
  60. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2014 Sep;151:174-83 [PMID: 24983515]
  61. Emotion. 2005 Mar;5(1):3-11 [PMID: 15755215]
  62. Behav Brain Res. 2014 May 1;264:188-96 [PMID: 24512771]
  63. J Neurosci. 2014 Jul 2;34(27):9173-7 [PMID: 24990937]
  64. Neurosci Lett. 2013 Apr 12;540:3-14 [PMID: 23153827]
  65. Hum Brain Mapp. 2010 Sep;31(9):1316-26 [PMID: 20087840]
  66. Iperception. 2013 Jun 11;4(5):303-16 [PMID: 24349690]
  67. Cogn Process. 2018 May;19(2):147-165 [PMID: 28314942]
  68. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Mar 10;106(10):3847-52 [PMID: 19237562]
  69. Prog Brain Res. 2006;154:135-48 [PMID: 17010707]
  70. Curr Biol. 2009 Feb 24;19(4):319-24 [PMID: 19200723]
  71. Cereb Cortex. 2017 Nov 1;27(11):5116-5129 [PMID: 27660050]
  72. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016 Jan;60:65-71 [PMID: 26619805]
  73. Front Hum Neurosci. 2011 Nov 18;5:139 [PMID: 22121344]
  74. Psychiatry Res. 2012 Jul 30;203(1):105-8 [PMID: 22892350]
  75. Neuropsychology. 2009 Mar;23(2):135-43 [PMID: 19254086]
  76. Neuroimage. 2011 Mar 1;55(1):420-33 [PMID: 21111833]
  77. J Neurosci. 2017 Feb 1;37(5):1156-1161 [PMID: 28011742]
  78. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Nov 20;98(24):13995-9 [PMID: 11717457]

MeSH Term

Emotions
Esthetics
Female
Humans
Male
Paintings
Pilot Projects
Temporal Lobe
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0expressivityevaluationneuralportraitsTMSrightemotionemotionalSTSlikingmechanismsprocessingfacesbasissuperiortemporalsulcusSCinvolvedinterferingactivityeitherviewingportraitoftencapturedevendepictedimmediatelyidentifiableunderlyingreallargelyclarifiedstillknowlittlestudyaimedassessing-bymeanstranscranialmagneticstimulation-whethersomatosensorycorteximportantdiscriminatingfacialexpressionsalsocausallyfoundviafaceregionsignificantlyreducedextentpaintingsdepictinghumanfiguresbackgroundperceivedexpressivewithoutthoughaffectingturnimpactevaluatingpaintings'categoryfindingssuggestcuesartworksrecruitleastpartiallygenuinebiologicalothersMoreovershedlightdecisionsartart-naïvepeoplesupportingviewaestheticappreciationreliesmultitudefactorsbeyondaffectsArtworksEmotion

Similar Articles

Cited By