Neural characteristics of cognitive reappraisal success and failure: An ERP study.

Dan Cao,Yingjie Li,Margaret A Niznikiewicz

doi:10.1002/brb3.1584

Dan Cao, Yingjie Li + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.1584

Copy DOI

Abstract

IntroductionCognitive reappraisal, an important strategy of emotion regulation, can change emotional experience and attention to emotional information. However, not all individuals can deploy reappraisal strategies successfully. In the current study, we investigated event‐related potential (ERP) characteristics of reappraisal success and of reappraisal failure.MethodsTwenty‐six participants were divided into the success group or the failure group based on self‐report ratings of how successful they were in reducing their response to negative images using cognitive reappraisal strategy. All participants viewed 30 neutral images and 30 negative images which they were asked to just watch, and 30 negative stimuli that they were asked to reappraise, while electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded.ResultsThe success group reported a significant reduction in the unpleasantness of negative images than the failure group in the negative‐reappraisal condition. The ERP data indicated that two time windows differentiated between the success and failure groups. In 200–300 ms, P200 was significantly more positive to the negative‐watch condition relative to both negative‐reappraisal and neutral conditions in the failure group, while no difference was observed in the success group. In 300–5,000 ms, cognitive reappraisal led to increased late positive potential (LPP) relative to negative‐watch in the early and middle latency windows (300–3,100 ms) in both groups; in the late latency window (3,100–5,000 ms), the reappraisal success group showed the LPP amplitude to the negative‐reappraisal stimuli to be more positive than to the negative‐watch stimuli, while no difference was found in the reappraisal failure group.ConclusionOur study provided direct evidence that different neurophysiological features were associated with reappraisal success and failure while engaging in the reappraisal of negative stimuli. This result will contribute to better understanding of the neural mechanism of emotion regulation in emotional disorders (i.e., depression and anxiety).

Highlights

Cognitive reappraisal, an important strategy of emotion regulation, can change emotional experience and attention to emotional information
In 300–5,000 ms, cognitive reappraisal led to increased late positive potential (LPP) relative to negativewatch in the early and middle latency windows (300–3,100 ms) in both groups; in the late latency window (3,100–5,000 ms), the reappraisal success group showed the LPP amplitude to the negative-reappraisal stimuli to be more positive than to the negative-watch stimuli, while no difference was found in the reappraisal failure group
The difference between negative-watch and negative-reappraisal was associated with the P200, while the LPP amplitude indexed the differences between the negative-watch and negative-reappraisal conditions starting from 300 to 3,100 ms, and was similar to the success group, but such difference was lacking in the late epoch (3,100–5,000 ms)

Summary

Introduction

An important strategy of emotion regulation, can change emotional experience and attention to emotional information. Conclusion: Our study provided direct evidence that different neurophysiological features were associated with reappraisal success and failure while engaging in the reappraisal of negative stimuli. This result will contribute to better understanding of the neural mechanism of emotion regulation in emotional disorders (i.e., depression and anxiety). The effects of reappraisal aimed to decrease negative emotions are reflected behaviorally in the reduction of self-reported negative experience (Staudinger, Erk, Abler, & Walter, 2009; Wager, Davidson, Hughes, Lindquist, & Ochsner, 2008), that is, reduced unpleasantness of, and arousal associated with, negative stimuli (Foti & Hajcak, 2008; Hajcak & Nieuwenhuis, 2006; Thiruchselvam, Blechert, Sheppes, Rydstrom, & Gross, 2011; Van Cauwenberge, Leeuwen, Hoppenbrouwers, & Wiersema, 2017; Yuan, Zhou, & Hu, 2014).

Methods

Findings

Discussion

Conclusion