![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 1997, The National Academy of Sciences of the USA Neurobiology Emotion, olfaction, and the human amygdala: Amygdala activation during aversive olfactory stimulation*Cognitive Neuroimaging Unit, Psychiatry Service, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, One Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55417; and †Department of Psychology and ‡Division of Neuroscience Research, Department of Psychiatry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455 §To whom reprint requests should be addressed. e-mail: jvpardo/at/james.psych.umn.edu. Communicated by Mortimer Mishkin, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, MD Received July 1, 1996; Accepted February 14, 1997. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract Electrophysiologic and lesion studies of animals increasingly implicate the amygdala in aspects of emotional processing. Yet, the functions of the human amygdala remain poorly understood. To examine the contributions of the amygdala and other limbic and paralimbic regions to emotional processing, we exposed healthy subjects to aversive olfactory stimuli while measuring regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) with positron emission tomography. Exposure to a highly aversive odorant produced strong rCBF increases in both amygdalae and in the left orbitofrontal cortex. Exposure to less aversive odorants produced rCBF increases in the orbitofrontal cortex but not in the amygdala. Change of rCBF within the left amygdala and the left OFC was highly intercorrelated, indicating a strong functional interaction between these brain regions. Furthermore, the activity within the left amygdala was associated significantly with subjective ratings of perceived aversiveness. These findings provide evidence that the human amygdala participates in the hedonic or emotional processing of olfactory stimuli. Keywords: positron emission tomography, orbitofrontal, brain blood flow, brain mapping, affect How the human brain processes emotions is unclear. Studies using electrophysiologic and lesion techniques suggest that the amygdala plays a crucial role in emotional processing in mammals (1, 2). Amygdala lesions critically disrupt the development and expression of conditioned fear in rodents (3). Nonhuman primates with amygdala lesions demonstrate abnormal emotional responses to biologically significant stimuli (Kluver–Bucy syndrome), including marked reductions in the expression of fear and aggression (4). Single cell studies of the amygdala in nonhuman primates indicate that the activity of many amygdala cells depends on the hedonic significance of stimuli (5, 6). These cells do not respond to sensory stimuli per se but to stimuli with unconditioned or conditioned aversive (punishing) qualities. Such research suggests that the amygdala may play an important role in emotional processing and psychopathology in humans. However, an understanding of the functions of the human amygdala has proven elusive. Data regarding the role of the amygdala in humans remain scarce and are largely limited to case studies of patients with neurological conditions. The observation that electrical stimulation and seizures focused on the human amygdala frequently produce fear or other emotional responses provides strong evidence implicating the amygdala in emotional processing in humans (7, 8). However, lesions of the amygdala in humans rarely produce the constellation of emotional abnormalities associated with lesions of the amygdala in nonhuman primates, except when amygdala damage occurs in conjunction with diffuse cerebral disease (9). Recently, several cases of selective amygdala lesions due to Urbach–Wiethe syndrome have been reported. Studies of these patients indicate that bilateral amygdala lesions cause impairments in storing or recalling emotional memories, selective impairments in the recognition of fearful (but not positive) facial expressions, and impairments in cross-modal associations of olfactory and visual stimuli (10–12). The anatomy and behavioral features of olfactory processing suggest that hedonically valenced olfactory stimuli may act as useful probes for studying limbic regions. The perception of smell is dominated by a hedonic (pleasantness–unpleasantness) dimension, and exposure to odorants produces robust approach and withdrawal responses (13, 14). For example, the smell of smoke can evoke potently either fear and withdrawal responses or happiness and approach responses, depending on the circumstances surrounding odor perception. Such phenomena reflect the inextricable anatomical connections between the mammalian limbic and olfactory systems. The primary olfactory cortex (POC) is continuous with the anterior portion of the amygdala and projects directly to the amygdala and posterior orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) as well as perirhinal, entorhinal, and insular cortices (15, 16). Approximately 40% of the neurons in the rodent amygdala respond to olfactory stimulation (17). Despite the amygdala’s diminishing role in olfaction during evolution (18–20), primates retain direct projections from the lateral olfactory tract to the anterior cortical nucleus of the amygdala, and the medial nucleus of the amygdala remains intimately connected with the POC (15). As such, olfaction is the only exteroceptive sensory modality possessing direct bidirectional projections between the amygdala and primary sensory cortex. This anatomy suggests a high level of functional connectivity between the olfactory and limbic systems. Not surprisingly, the medial amygdala has been observed to increase its firing during the inhalation of odorants as measured electrophysiologically in conscious monkeys and humans (21, 22). Based on evidence cited above, we hypothesized that odorants with strong hedonic qualities would activate the human amygdala and other limbic or paralimbic regions receiving olfactory input. To test this, we exposed healthy subjects to aversively valenced olfactory stimuli while regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF), a marker of neuronal activity, was measured with positron emission tomography (PET). METHODS Subjects. Twelve healthy women (ages 19–49 years, all right-handed) were exposed to a highly aversive odorant (a mixture of sulfide gasses) while cerebral activity was assayed through measurement of rCBF with PET. Informed consent followed procedures approved by the Veterans Affairs Medical Center Institutional Human Studies Committee and Radioactive Drug Research Committee. Two subjects were excluded from group subtraction analysis of the highly aversive condition because they failed to meet the a priori cutoff for an aversive response (rating of less than 4 on a scale described below). However, these two subjects were included in correlational analyses. Materials and Experimental Procedure. The sulfide cocktail (25 ppm each of dimethyl sulfide, ethanethiol, and methanethiol) was delivered from a 1-liter plastic bag with the outlet positioned ≈15 cm from the nostrils. Gas release began upon the start of radiotracer infusion and continued through the first 60 s of scan acquisition. The concentration of sulfides was below the level expected to produce trigeminal activation, and no subjects reported nasal irritation. To examine whether less aversive stimuli produce similar rCBF changes, eight of the subjects were scanned using identical imaging techniques while smelling four mild to moderately aversive stimuli. Scents were selected according to individual and normative ratings of unpleasantness from the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) (23). The set of four UPSIT odorants, each applied for 8 s, was presented in sequence two times during the scan. The control condition, performed first, had no odorant. Subjects were instructed for all three conditions as follows: “Close your eyes. Breathe through your nose, and see if you can smell anything.” After each scan, subjects rated the odorant for pleasantness–unpleasantness (visual analog scale of 0–10, with: 0, extremely aversive; 5, neutral; and 10, extremely pleasant) and intensity (visual analog scale of 0–10 with: 0, undetectable; and 10, extremely intense). Imaging and Analysis. Blood flow was estimated from the normalized (1000-count) tissue radioactivity (after correction with measured 2-dimensional attenuation) using a Siemens ECAT 953B camera (Knoxville, TN) with septae retracted; a slow bolus injection of H215O [814 MBq or 22 mCi (1 Ci = 37 GBq) initial dose infused at a constant rate over 30 s] (24), a 90-s scan acquisition beginning upon radiotracer arrival into the brain; and a 10-minute interscan interval. Images were reconstructed using a 3-dimensional reconstruction algorithm with a Hann filter (0.5 cycle/pixel) (25). Measured coincidences were corrected for randoms and electronic dead time; no corrections were made for decay or scatter. Software developed and provided by Minoshima and coworkers (26–28) enabled: normalization of global activity; coregistration within each study session; placement of the intercommissural line from image fiducials; and nonlinear warping of each subject’s scans to a reference stereotactic atlas (29). analyze (BRU, Mayo Foundation, Rochester, MN) was used for image display. Final image resolution was ≈12 mm full width at half maximum. It is important to distinguish image resolution (here approaching the size of the human amygdala) from brain mapping resolution (approaching 2–3 mm with these methods) (30). Although two activation foci separated by less than the image resolution cannot be resolved, the peak of a single activation focus can be mapped accurately well below the image resolution. RESULTS Analysis of psychoperceptual ratings indicated that the subjects rated the sulfides as highly aversive (mean = 1.3, SD = 1.2) and highly intense (mean = 8.6, SD = 1.4). They most frequently described the odor as smelling like rotting vegetables and reported increased muscle tension, repulsion, disgust, or fear that the gasses were dangerous. UPSIT odorants were rated significantly less aversive [mean = 2.8, SD = 1.6; t2-tail(16) = 2.3, P < 0.04] and less intense [mean = 5.8, SD = 1.3, t2-tail(16) = 4.1, P < 0.001] than the sulfide mixture. The most significant rCBF increases during the highly aversive sulfide condition relative to the no odorant condition are listed in Table 1 and are depicted in Fig. Fig.1.1
When subjects were exposed to the mildly aversive UPSIT odorants, a significant increase in rCBF again was observed in the left OFC (x = −24, y = 28, z = −11; Z score = 4.2). However, activity within the amygdala did not increase significantly over the control condition (see Fig. Fig.2).2
The data from both aversive conditions (sulfides and UPSIT odorants) were pooled and submitted to correlational analysis to test the hypothesis that rCBF change was related to the subjective ratings of unpleasantness. Data from both the sulfide and UPSIT stimuli (12 and 8 scan pairs, respectively) were combined for this analysis to provide a range of unpleasantness ratings and to provide a sample size with adequate statistical power. The difference in amygdala rCBF between odorant and nonodor conditions was calculated for each subject’s scan pairs by averaging the difference in rCBF in each pixel (after normalization for global activity and anatomy as above) within an ROI (sphere, 5 mm radius) centered upon the peak coordinates of the amygdala and left OFC activation from Table 1. Increases in rCBF within the left amygdala correlated significantly with decreases in numerical scores, denoting greater perceived unpleasantness (r = −0.51, P < 0.05) (Fig. (Fig.33
Activation of the left OFC also significantly correlated with ratings of unpleasantness (r = −0.46, P < 0.05 (Fig. (Fig.33 DISCUSSION The present study demonstrates large increases in amygdala activity bilaterally during exposure to aversive odorants. This represents the most statistically robust demonstration of amygdala activation observed to date using PET in humans. Several methodological issues must be considered in interpreting the current results. First, although activation of the right amygdala centered on the expected coordinates in the Talairach atlas, increased rCBF in the left amygdala region extended laterally into the inferior insula. The peak of increased rCBF actually localized to a region slightly lateral to the Talairach boundaries of the amygdala. However, a wide range of individual variation exists in the size and exact location of the human amygdala, which is not reflected in the atlas. Also, current PET methods may not resolve independent foci in amygdala and immediately adjacent insula. Nevertheless, rCBF increased significantly in a small ROI centered upon the Talairach atlas coordinates of the amygdala, and these increases correlated with the perceived unpleasantness of the stimuli. The complex responses to aversive odorants further complicate interpretation of amygdala activation. Subjects frequently reported increased muscle tension when exposed to the sulfides. Some subjects reported attempting to change their breathing to reduce inhalation of the aversive odorants. No formal measures of autonomic, visceral, or respiratory functions were assayed as part of this study. Because the amygdala receives interoceptive afferents and may play a role in autonomic functions (2, 32), a plausible alternate interpretation concerns the participation of the amygdala in respiration and autonomic regulation. Lesions of the amygdala block conditioned respiratory responses to aversive stimuli (33). Neurophysiological studies of nonhuman primates and other mammals indicate that stimulation of the amygdala can produce changes in respiration (2, 34). Cells in the amygdala fire in relation to respiration (35) although the proportion of these cells in humans appears to be smaller than in other mammals (36). However, amygdala activation has not been observed in previous neuroimaging studies in which subjects were instructed to volitionally alter their breathing (37, 38) nor has amygdala activation occurred as a primary response in other studies involving respiratory or autonomic changes (39, 40). Furthermore, preliminary experiments in our laboratory in which subjects underwent gastric dilation (which produces robust vagal stimulation, difficulty breathing, and other autonomic responses) failed to produce significant changes in amygdala rCBF (J.V.P., S. W. Kim, P. L. Faris, B. K. Hartman, and R. L. Goodale, unpublished observations). Although autonomic or visceral components cannot be ruled out absolutely, these factors alone probably do not account for the robust amygdala activity observed by exposure to aversive odorants. The correlation between ratings of unpleasantness and changes in rCBF in the left amygdala suggests that neuronal activity in these regions is directly related to (or dependent on) the perceived hedonic valence of the stimuli. This result and its interpretation need qualification because of two methodological issues. First, the UPSIT and sulfide conditions differed in the type, intensity, and number of stimuli used in each condition (four stimuli presented twice vs. one stimulus). However, when the data were analyzed separately for these conditions, the correlations were of equal or greater magnitude. Furthermore, when subjects rated the UPSIT as highly aversive (ratings of 0–2), amygdala rCBF increased by 2–6%, indicating that increased amygdala rCBF did not result from some specific characteristic of the sulfides. Second, the observed correlations between changes in rCBF and ratings of unpleasantness do not necessarily imply a simple linear relationship between left amygdala activity and psychoperceptual ratings. Of interest, both subjects who were excluded a priori from the group analysis of the sulfide condition because they failed to perceive the sulfides as highly aversive did not show increases in left amygdala rCBF, and one actually had a strong (15%) decrease in left amygdala rCBF. Similarly, the three subjects who rated the UPSIT as only mildly unpleasant or neutral (ratings of 3.5 or higher) had either decreases or no change in left amygdala rCBF. Two different types of responses may thus occur in the left amygdala during aversive olfaction: activation for highly aversive odors and deactivation for neutral or mildly aversive odors. To further examine whether amygdala responses to olfactory stimuli are influenced by hedonic valence, we conducted additional PET studies using pleasant odorants (fruits, spices, and florals; unpublished observations). A statistically nonsignificant increase in rCBF in the right anterior amygdala/periamygdala region occurred in response to these odorants. The increase did not localize as clearly to the amygdala and occurred inconsistently. No significant increases localized to the left amygdala during stimulation with pleasant odorants. The lack of strong amygdala activation in these pleasant conditions concurs with a previous PET study that failed to observe amygdala activation during exposure to relatively neutral and pleasant stimuli (31). These results suggest that amygdala activity (especially left amygdala activity) is not simply a consequence of olfactory perception per se. Rather, the hedonic valence of the odorant influences amygdala activity. The greater ability of aversive than neutral or positive odorants to activate the amygdala is consistent with studies of electrical stimulation and of selective lesions in humans, suggesting greater amygdala involvement in negative than positive emotions (7, 8, 10). These data also converge with studies reporting aversive olfactory hallucinations during amygdala seizures and during electrical stimulation of the amygdala (41–43). Because of the methodological issues raised above, the potentially different roles of the left and right amygdalae require further characterization. Both amygdalae showed robust increases in rCBF during exposure to highly aversive odorants. Nevertheless, our finding that rCBF change in the left amygdala (but not the right amygdala) correlated with ratings of unpleasantness converges with a recent report by Ketter et al. (44). They observed that, despite bilateral amygdala activation in subjects experiencing procaine-induced fear, only left amygdala activation correlated with subjective ratings of fear. Similarly, PET and fMRI studies have reported increased activity in left, but not right, ROIs placed on the amygdalae of subjects exposed to negatively valenced (sad) faces (45, 46). Consistent with these neuroimaging data, subjects with left amygdala lesions rate facial expressions of disgust and sadness as slightly less intense than those with right amygdala lesions (although both ratings fell within the range produced by controls with brain damage) (47). These data also converge with evidence that clinically depressed patients scanned while resting may show elevated left amygdala rCBF, which correlates with depression severity (48). Thus, despite methodological limitations, the present correlational analyses appear quite consistent with an emerging body of evidence identifying a close relationship between left amygdala activity and negative affect. The asymmetry in OFC activation is of interest in relation to previous studies of olfaction in humans. OFC lesions in humans, especially involving the right hemisphere, produce deficits in olfactory discrimination and recognition (49, 50). Zatorre et al. (31) reported that human subjects exposed to a series of pleasant, neutral, and mildly aversive stimuli showed statistically significant activation in the right, but not in the left, OFC. As can be seen from Fig. Fig.11 The consistently high correlation between left amygdala and left OFC rCBF suggests the presence of an important functional interaction between the left amygdala and OFC during the processing of aversive olfactory stimuli. This interaction is consistent with the dense anatomical connections between the regions (32, 51) and with previous observations that OFC lesions produce alterations in emotional behavior that closely resemble many of the behavioral abnormalities arising from amygdala lesions in nonhuman primates (reviewed in ref. 52). Nevertheless, these two structures likely play distinct roles during aversive olfaction given their dissimilar responses to the UPSIT stimuli. The methodological and perceptual features affecting the differential amygdala and OFC responses in the milder UPSIT condition require further investigation. Of interest, exposure to the sulfide mixture caused more fear, disgust, and desire to withdraw than exposure to UPSIT odorants. Fear or disgust might thus be necessary to induce significant rCBF increases in the amygdala but not in OFC. Experiments are planned to directly test this hypothesis. Despite the amygdala’s diminishing role in olfactory processing during phylogeny, the current study shows that the human amygdala plays a fundamental role in olfaction. Olfactory perception robustly engages emotional processes. Although future research will be necessary to tease apart the specific factors contributing to increased rCBF in the amygdala, the current data demonstrate substantial amygdala activation during olfaction of highly aversive odorants. These findings support a critical role of the human amygdala in either the processing of aversive olfactory stimuli or the transduction of neural signals from smells into emotional responses. Acknowledgments We thank the technical staff of the PET Imaging Service; Michael Levitt and John Springfield of the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center Research Service for preparing gas samples; Satoshi Minoshima (University of Michigan) for providing analysis software; Joel Lee, Humberto Temporini, and Patricia Pardo for assistance and advice; our volunteer subjects for their patience and generosity; and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. This research was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs; the Minnesota Medical Foundation; and the University of Minnesota (Grants-in-Aid of Research, Artistry, and Scholarship; Eva O. Miller Fellowship to D.H.Z.). ABBREVIATIONS
Note Added in Proof References 1. Aggleton J P. The Amygdala: Neurobiological Aspects of Emotion, Memory, and Mental Dysfunction. New York: Wiley–Liss; 1992. 2. LeDoux J E. In: Handbook of Physiology. Plum F, Mountcastle V B, editors. Vol. 5. Bethesda, MD: Am. Physiol. Soc.; 1987. pp. 419–459. 3. Davis M. Annu Rev Neurosci. 1992;15:353–375. [PubMed] 4. Kluver H, Bucy P C. Am J Physiol. 1937;119:352–353. 5. Ono T, Nishijo H. In: The Amygdala: Neurobiological Aspects of Emotion, Memory, and Mental Dysfunction. Aggleton J P, editor. New York: Wiley–Liss; 1992. pp. 167–190. 6. Rolls E T. In: The Amygdala: Neurobiological Aspects of Emotion, Memory, and Mental Dysfunction. Aggleton J P, editor. New York: Wiley–Liss; 1992. pp. 143–166. 7. Gloor P. Brain. 1990;113:1673–1694. [PubMed] 8. Halgren E. Hum Neurobiol. 1982;1:251–260. [PubMed] 9. Marlowe W B, Mancall E L, Thomas J J. Cortex. 1975;11:53–59. [PubMed] 10. Adolphs R, Tranel D, Damasio H, Damasio A R. Nature (London). 1994;372:669–672. [PubMed] 11. Cahill L, Babinsky R, Markowitsch H J, McGaugh J L. Nature (London). 1995;377:295–296. [PubMed] 12. Markowitsch H J, Calabrese P, Wurker M, Durwn H F, Kessler J, Babinsky R, Brechtelsbauer D, Heuser L, Gehlen W. NeuroReport. 1994;5:1349–1352. [PubMed] 13. Engen T. Am Sci. 1987;75:497–503. 14. Richardson J E, Zucco G M. Psychol Bull. 1989;105:352–360. [PubMed] 15. Price J L. In: The Human Nervous System. Paxinos G, editor. New York: Academic; 1991. pp. 979–998. 16. Carmichael S T, Clugnet M C, Price J L. J Comp Neurol. 1994;346:403–434. [PubMed] 17. Cain D P, Bindra D. Exp Neurol. 1972;35:98–110. [PubMed] 18. Cragg B G. Exp Neurol. 1960;2:547–572. [PubMed] 19. Stephan H, Frahm H D, Baron G. J Hirnforsch. 1987;28:571–584. [PubMed] 20. Halgren E, Babb T L, Rausch R, Crandall P H. Neurosci Lett. 1977;4:331. 21. Narabayashi, H. (1980) Acta. Neurochir. 30, Suppl., 75–81. 22. Tanabe T, Iino M, Takagi S F. J Neurophysiol. 1975;38:1284–1296. [PubMed] 23. Doty R L, Shaman P, Dann M. Physiol Behav. 1984;32:489–502. [PubMed] 24. Silbersweig D A, Stern E, Frith C D, Cahill C, Schnor L, Grootoonk S, Spinks T, Clark J, Frackowiak R S, Jones T. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1993;13:617–629. [PubMed] 25. Kinahan P E, Rogers J G. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1988;36:964–986. 26. Minoshima S, Koeppe R A, Frey K A, Kuhl D E. J Nucl Med. 1994;35:1528–1537. [PubMed] 27. Minoshima S, Koeppe R A, Mintun M A, Berger K L, Taylor S F, Frey K A, Kuhl D E. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:322–329. [PubMed] 28. Minoshima S, Berger K L, Lee K S, Mintun M A. J Nucl Med. 1992;33:1579–1585. [PubMed] 29. Talairach J, Tournoux P. Coplanar Stereotactic Atlas of the Human Brain. New York: Theime; 1988. 30. Fox P T, Mintun M A, Raichle M E, Miezin F M, Allman J M, Van Essen D C. Nature (London). 1986;323:806–809. [PubMed] 31. Zatorre R J, Jones-Gotman M, Evans A C, Meyer E. Nature (London). 1992;360:339–340. [PubMed] 32. Amaral D G, Price J L, Pitkänen A, Carmichael S T. In: The Amygdala: Neurobiological Aspects of Emotion, Memory, and Mental Dysfunction. Aggleton J P, editor. New York: Wiley–Liss; 1992. pp. 1–66. 33. Zhang J X, Harper R M, Ni H F. Brain Res. 1986;386:136–145. [PubMed] 34. Harper R M, Frysinger R C, Trelase R B, Marks J D. Brain Res. 1984;306:1–8. [PubMed] 35. Radna R J, MacLean P D. Brain Res. 1981;213:45–61. [PubMed] 36. Frysinger R C, Harper R M. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1989;72:463–470. [PubMed] 37. Colebatch J G, Adams L, Murphy K, Martin A J, Lammertsma A A, Tochon-Danguy H J, Clark J C, Friston K J, Guz A. J Physiol (London). 1991;443:91–103. [PubMed] 38. Ramsay S C, Adams L, Murphy K, Corfield D R, Grootoonk S, Bailey D L, Frackowiak R S, Guz A. J Physiol (London). 1993;461:85–101. [PubMed] 39. Rauch S L, Savage R, Alpert N, Euripedes C M, Baer L, Breiter H C, Fischman A J, Manzo P A, Moretti C, Jenike M A. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1995;52:20–28. [PubMed] 40. Minoshima, S. Morrow, T. J., Koeppe, R. A. & Casey, K. L. (1995) Hum. Brain Mapp. 1, Suppl., 166.41. Andy O J. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1967;23:292. [PubMed] 42. Andy O J, Jurko M F, Hughes J R. Confin Neurol. 1975;37:215–222. [PubMed] 43. Chitanodh H. Confin Neurol. 1966;27:181–196. [PubMed] 44. Ketter T A, Andreason P J, George M S, Lee C, Gill D S, Parekh P I, Willis M W, Herscovitch P, Post R M. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1996;53:59–69. [PubMed] 45. Schneider F, Gur R E, Mozley L H, Smith R J, Mozley P D, Censits D M, Alavi A, Gur R C. Psychiatry Res Neuroimaging. 1995;6:265–283. 46. Grodd W, Schneider F, Klose U, Nagele T. Radiologe. 1995;35:283–289. [PubMed] 47. Adolphs R, Tranel D, Damasio H, Damasio A R. J Neurosci. 1995;15:5879–5891. [PubMed] 48. Drevets W C, Videen T O, Preskorn S H, Price J L, Carmichael S T, Raichle M E. J Neurosci. 1992;12:3628–3641. [PubMed] 49. Zatorre R J, Jones-Gotman M. Brain. 1991;114:71–84. [PubMed] 50. Jones-Gotman M, Zatorre R J. Brain Cognit. 1993;22:182–198. [PubMed] 51. Zald D H, Kim S W. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1996;8:125–138. [PubMed] 52. Zald D H, Kim S W. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1996;8:249–261. [PubMed] 53. Morris J S, Frith C D, Perret D I, Rowland D, Young A W, Calder A J, Dolan R J. Nature (London). 1996;383:812–815. [PubMed] 54. Breitner H C, Etcoff N L, Whalen P J, Kennedy W A, Rauch S L, Buckner R L, Strauss M M, Hyman S E, Rosen B R. Neuron. 1996;17:875–887. [PubMed] 55. Scott S K, Young A W, Calder A J, Hellawell D J, Aggleton J P, Johnson M. Nature (London). 1997;385:254–257. [PubMed] |
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annu Rev Neurosci. 1992; 15():353-75.
[Annu Rev Neurosci. 1992]Brain. 1990 Dec; 113 ( Pt 6)():1673-94.
[Brain. 1990]Hum Neurobiol. 1982; 1(4):251-60.
[Hum Neurobiol. 1982]Cortex. 1975 Mar; 11(1):53-9.
[Cortex. 1975]Nature. 1994 Dec 15; 372(6507):669-72.
[Nature. 1994]Neuroreport. 1994 Jun 27; 5(11):1349-52.
[Neuroreport. 1994]Psychol Bull. 1989 May; 105(3):352-60.
[Psychol Bull. 1989]J Comp Neurol. 1994 Aug 15; 346(3):403-34.
[J Comp Neurol. 1994]Exp Neurol. 1972 Apr; 35(1):98-110.
[Exp Neurol. 1972]Exp Neurol. 1960 Oct; 2():547-72.
[Exp Neurol. 1960]J Neurophysiol. 1975 Sep; 38(5):1284-96.
[J Neurophysiol. 1975]Physiol Behav. 1984 Mar; 32(3):489-502.
[Physiol Behav. 1984]J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1993 Jul; 13(4):617-29.
[J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1993]J Nucl Med. 1994 Sep; 35(9):1528-37.
[J Nucl Med. 1994]J Nucl Med. 1992 Aug; 33(8):1579-85.
[J Nucl Med. 1992]Nature. 1986 Oct 30-Nov 5; 323(6091):806-9.
[Nature. 1986]Nature. 1992 Nov 26; 360(6402):339-40.
[Nature. 1992]Psychol Bull. 1989 May; 105(3):352-60.
[Psychol Bull. 1989]Brain Res. 1986 Oct 29; 386(1-2):136-45.
[Brain Res. 1986]Brain Res. 1984 Jul 23; 306(1-2):1-8.
[Brain Res. 1984]Brain Res. 1981 May 25; 213(1):45-61.
[Brain Res. 1981]Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1989 Jun; 72(6):463-70.
[Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1989]J Physiol. 1991 Nov; 443():91-103.
[J Physiol. 1991]Nature. 1992 Nov 26; 360(6402):339-40.
[Nature. 1992]Brain. 1990 Dec; 113 ( Pt 6)():1673-94.
[Brain. 1990]Hum Neurobiol. 1982; 1(4):251-60.
[Hum Neurobiol. 1982]Nature. 1994 Dec 15; 372(6507):669-72.
[Nature. 1994]Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1967 Sep; 23(3):292.
[Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1967]Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1996 Jan; 53(1):59-69.
[Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1996]Radiologe. 1995 Apr; 35(4):283-9.
[Radiologe. 1995]J Neurosci. 1995 Sep; 15(9):5879-91.
[J Neurosci. 1995]J Neurosci. 1992 Sep; 12(9):3628-41.
[J Neurosci. 1992]Brain. 1991 Feb; 114 ( Pt 1A)():71-84.
[Brain. 1991]Brain Cogn. 1993 Jul; 22(2):182-98.
[Brain Cogn. 1993]Nature. 1992 Nov 26; 360(6402):339-40.
[Nature. 1992]J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1996 Spring; 8(2):125-38.
[J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1996]J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1996 Summer; 8(3):249-61.
[J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1996]Nature. 1996 Oct 31; 383(6603):812-5.
[Nature. 1996]Nature. 1997 Jan 16; 385(6613):254-7.
[Nature. 1997]