# Emergence of the Affect from the Variation in the Whole-Brain Flow of Information

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Materials and Methods

#### 2.1. The Dataset

#### 2.2. Data Selection and Validation

#### 2.3. Causal Density and Causal Flow Computations

#### 2.4. Statistical Analysis

#### 2.4.1. Correlation

**Hypothesis**

**1 (H1).**

**Hypothesis**

**2 (H2).**

#### 2.4.2. Test of Significance

**Hypothesis**

**3 (H3).**

**Hypothesis**

**4 (H4).**

**Hypothesis**

**5 (H5).**

**Hypothesis**

**6 (H6).**

#### 2.4.3. Importance of Channels’ Unit Causal Densities

**Hypothesis**

**7 (H7).**

**Hypothesis**

**8 (H8).**

#### 2.5. Ethics Statement

## 3. Results

#### 3.1. Correlation

#### 3.2. Unit Causal Density

#### 3.3. Unit Causal Flow

#### 3.4. Importance of Channels’ Unit Causal Densities

## 4. Discussion

## 5. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Conflicts of Interest

## Appendix A. Correlations Prior to One-Sample Bootstrap Test Correction of Unit Causal Densities

**Figure A1.**Paired Spearman correlation between participants’ ucd values and prior to considering the ucd values above the upper bound of their 95.0% confidence interval. (

**A**) Positive versus Negative; (

**B**) Positive versus Neutral; (

**C**) Negative versus Neutral. The subplots on the right column correspond to the bootstrap correlation test (10,000 simulation runs) at 95.0% confidence interval. Values associated with the right-column subplots are given in Table A1.

**Table A1.**Bootstrap (10,000 simulation runs) 95.0% confidence intervals (CI) associated with the Spearman correlation between Negative, Neutral, and Positive affects. These correlations were calculated prior to considering the ucd values above the upper bound of their 95.0% confidence interval.

Conditions | r | p (Two-Tailed) | CI${}_{95\%}$ |
---|---|---|---|

Positive vs. Negative | 0.66 | 0.00001 | [0.61 0.71] |

ine Positive vs. Neutral | 0.69 | 0.00001 | [0.65 0.73] |

ine Negative vs. Neutral | 0.60 | 0.00001 | [0.55 0.65] |

## Appendix B. Channel-Wise Wilcoxon Test of Significant Difference between the Information Flow in Negative, Neutral, and Positive Affects

**Table A2.**Positive versus Neutral channel-wise paired Wilcoxon rank sum test. Columns p, W(122), and r correspond to the Wilcoxon’s p-values, test-statistics, and effect size. Mean and standard deviation of each of these affect states are their respective M and SD columns. Neutral > Positive and Positive > Neutral refer to the cases in which channels’ information flow in Neutral/Positive were higher than Positive/Neutral. This table corresponds to Figure 5 in Section 3.3.

Condition | Channel | p < | Effect Size | W(122) | M${}_{\mathit{Positive}}$ | SD${}_{\mathit{Positive}}$ | M${}_{\mathit{Neutral}}$ | SD${}_{\mathit{Neutral}}$ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Neutral > Positive | F5 | 0.01 | 3.04 | 0.27 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.05 |

F4 | 0.05 | 2.00 | 0.18 | 0.007 | 0.01 | 0.009 | 0.01 | |

F6 | 0.001 | 3.54 | 0.32 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.05 | |

FC3 | 0.03 | 2.71 | 0.24 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | |

C2 | 0.05 | 2.13 | 0.19 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.01 | |

C4 | 0.03 | 2.59 | 0.23 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | |

CPZ | 0.001 | 3.52 | 0.32 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.03 | |

CP6 | 0.03 | 2.58 | 0.23 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | |

TP8 | 0.05 | 2.05 | 0.18 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.05 | |

Positive > Neutral | FT7 | 0.0001 | 4.17 | 0.37 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.02 |

FT8 | 0.05 | 2.09 | 0.19 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.03 | 0.03 | |

TP7 | 0.03 | 2.55 | 0.23 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.03 | |

CP3 | 0.03 | 2.22 | 0.20 | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.01 | |

P5 | 0.00001 | 6.82 | 0.61 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.004 | 0.01 | |

P1 | 0.001 | 3.70 | 0.33 | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.004 | 0.005 | |

P4 | 0.00001 | 4.58 | 0.41 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.002 | 0.003 | |

P6 | 0.00001 | 5.40 | 0.48 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.01 | |

P8 | 0.03 | 2.29 | 0.21 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.03 | |

PO5 | 0.00001 | 8.47 | 0.76 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.001 | 0.001 | |

POZ | 0.00001 | 8.00 | 0.72 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.001 | 0.002 | |

PO6 | 0.05 | 2.00 | 0.18 | 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.0004 | 0.001 | |

OZ | 0.0001 | 4.10 | 0.37 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.012 | |

O2 | 0.01 | 2.94 | 0.26 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 |

**Table A3.**Positive versus Negative channel-wise paired Wilcoxon rank sum test. Columns p, W(122), and r correspond to the Wilcoxon’s p-values, test-statistics, and effect size. Mean and standard deviation of each of these affect states are their respective M and SD columns. Negative > Positive and Positive > Negative refer to the cases in which channels’ information flow in Negative/Positive were higher than Positive/Negative. This table corresponds to Figure 6 in Section 3.3.

Condition | Channel | p < | Effect Size | W(122) | M${}_{\mathit{Positive}}$ | SD${}_{\mathit{Positive}}$ | M${}_{\mathit{Neutral}}$ | SD${}_{\mathit{Neutral}}$ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Negative > Positive | F5 | 0.01 | 2.72 | 0.24 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.05 |

F3 | 0.001 | 4.03 | 0.36 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.01 | 0.01 | |

F6 | 0.00001 | 4.76 | 0.43 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.05 | |

FT7 | 0.03 | 2.50 | 0.22 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.09 | |

FC3 | 0.03 | 2.63 | 0.24 | 0.018 | 0.02 | 0.024 | 0.02 | |

FC2 | 0.03 | 2.56 | 0.23 | 0.005 | 0.01 | 0.007 | 0.01 | |

C3 | 0.05 | 2.15 | 0.19 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | |

CP3 | 0.05 | 2.03 | 0.18 | 0.007 | 0.01 | 0.008 | 0.01 | |

CPZ | 0.05 | 2.12 | 0.19 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.02 | |

CP6 | 0.01 | 2.94 | 0.26 | 0.01 | 0.019 | 0.021 | 0.02 | |

O2 | 0.01 | 2.75 | 0.25 | 0.009 | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.01 | |

FP1 | 0.03 | 2.50 | 0.22 | 0.02 | 00.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | |

FPZ | 0.05 | 2.19 | 0.20 | 0.013 | 0.02 | 0.007 | 0.014 | |

F7 | 0.01 | 3.34 | 0.30 | 0.014 | 0.01 | 0.009 | 0.01 | |

F1 | 0.001 | 3.50 | 0.31 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.003 | 0.01 | |

F2 | 0.0001 | 4.15 | 0.37 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.001 | 0.001 | |

Positive > Negative | F4 | 0.03 | 2.63 | 0.24 | 0.007 | 0.01 | 0.004 | 0.01 |

C4 | 0.03 | 2.72 | 0.24 | 0.014 | 0.01 | 0.010 | 0.01 | |

T8 | 0.01 | 3.12 | 0.28 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.03 | 0.03 | |

TP7 | 0.01 | 2.76 | 0.25 | 0.029 | 0.03 | 0.018 | 0.02 | |

CP2 | 0.03 | 2.47 | 0.22 | 0.005 | 0.005 | 0.003 | 0.003 | |

CP4 | 0.03 | 2.26 | 0.20 | 0.007 | 0.01 | 0.005 | 0.01 | |

P7 | 0.03 | 2.51 | 0.23 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.04 | |

P5 | 0.01 | 2.59 | 0.23 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | |

P3 | 0.01 | 2.66 | 0.24 | 0.007 | 0.01 | 0.003 | 0.004 | |

P1 | 0.001 | 4.05 | 0.36 | 0.007 | 0.01 | 0.003 | 0.004 | |

P2 | 0.03 | 3.21 | 0.29 | 0.007 | 0.01 | 0.003 | 0.004 | |

P4 | 0.05 | 2.14 | 0.19 | 0.008 | 0.01 | 0.004 | 0.005 | |

PO5 | 0.03 | 2.23 | 0.20 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.002 | |

PO8 | 0.01 | 2.67 | 0.24 | 0.019 | 0.03 | 0.009 | 0.01 | |

OZ | 0.01 | 3.21 | 0.29 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.01 |

**Table A4.**Negative versus Neutral channel-wise paired Wilcoxon rank sum test. Columns p, W(122), and r correspond to the Wilcoxon’s p-values, test-statistics, and effect size. Mean and standard deviation of each of these affect states are their respective M and SD columns. Neutral > Negative and Negative > Neutral refer to the cases in which channels’ information flow in Neutral/Negative were higher than Negative/Neutral. This table corresponds to Figure 7 in Section 3.3.

Condition | Channel | p < | Effect Size (r) | W(122) | M${}_{\mathit{Positive}}$ | SD${}_{\mathit{Positive}}$ | M${}_{\mathit{Neutral}}$ | SD${}_{\mathit{Neutral}}$ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Neutral > Negative | FPZ | 0.05 | 2.06 | 0.19 | 0.007 | 0.01 | 0.009 | 0.01 |

F1 | 0.0001 | 4.23 | 0.38 | 0.003 | 0.01 | 0.006 | 0.01 | |

F2 | 0.01 | 2.90 | 0.26 | 0.0007 | 0.001 | 0.0013 | 0.002 | |

F4 | 0.0001 | 4.36 | 0.39 | 0.004 | 0.005 | 0.009 | 0.01 | |

FCZ | 0.01 | 2.92 | 0.26 | 0.005 | 0.01 | 0.010 | 0.01 | |

C4 | 0.0001 | 4.24 | 0.38 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | |

T8 | 0.01 | 2.62 | 0.24 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.06 | |

CP2 | 0.01 | 3.04 | 0.28 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.006 | 0.005 | |

Negative > Neutral | F3 | 0.01 | 2.65 | 0.24 | 0.005 | 0.01 | 0.003 | 0.004 |

FZ | 0.03 | 2.38 | 0.21 | 0.006 | 0.01 | 0.003 | 0.01 | |

FT7 | 0.00001 | 5.62 | 0.50 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.02 | |

FT8 | 0.001 | 3.54 | 0.32 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.03 | |

CP3 | 0.001 | 3.42 | 0.31 | 0.008 | 0.01 | 0.007 | 0.01 | |

P5 | 0.000001 | 4.92 | 0.44 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.004 | 0.01 | |

P4 | 0.01 | 2.58 | 0.23 | 0.004 | 0.005 | 0.002 | 0.003 | |

P6 | 0.00001 | 4.57 | 0.41 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | |

PO5 | 0.000001 | 7.59 | 0.68 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.0001 | 0.001 | |

PO3 | 0.03 | 2.45 | 0.22 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.006 | 0.01 | |

POZ | 0.000001 | 7.65 | 0.69 | 0.007 | 0.01 | 0.001 | 0.002 | |

PO4 | 0.03 | 2.20 | 0.20 | 0.007 | 0.01 | 0.005 | 0.01 | |

PO6 | 0.001 | 3.54 | 0.32 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.0005 | 0.001 | |

CB1 | 0.03 | 2.23 | 0.20 | 0.013 | 0.02 | 0.011 | 0.02 | |

O2 | 0.00001 | 4.64 | 0.42 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.006 | 0.01 |

## Appendix C. Channel-Wise Bootstrap Test of Significant Difference between the Information Flow in Negative, Neutral, and Positive Affects

**Figure A2.**Paired two-sample bootstrap test of significance (10,000 simulation runs) at 95.0% (i.e., p < 0.05) confidence interval (CI) between Positive and Neutral Information Flow. In these subplots, the blue line marks the null hypothesis $H0$ i.e., non-significant difference between the two states’ ucd values. The red lines are the boundaries of the 95.0% confidence interval. The yellow line shows the location of the average mean difference between two affect states for 10,000 simulation runs.

**Figure A3.**Paired two-sample bootstrap test of significance (10,000 simulation runs) at 95.0% (i.e., p < 0.05) confidence interval (CI) between Positive and Negative Information Flow. In these subplots, the blue line marks the null hypothesis $H0$ i.e., non-significant difference between the two states’ ucd values. The red lines are the boundaries of the 95.0% confidence interval. The yellow line shows the location of the average mean difference between two affect states for 10,000 simulation runs.

**Figure A4.**Paired two-sample bootstrap test of significance (10,000 simulation runs) at 95.0% (i.e., p < 0.05) confidence interval (CI) between Negative and Neutral Information Flow. In these subplots, the blue line marks the null hypothesis $H0$ i.e., non-significant difference between the two states’ ucd values. The red lines are the boundaries of the 95.0% confidence interval. The yellow line shows the location of the average mean difference between two affect states for 10,000 simulation runs.

**Table A5.**Positive versus Neutral channel-wise paired two-sample bootstrap test (10,000 simulation runs) at 95.0% confidence interval (CI) applied on the directional information flow. M and SD refer to the mean difference and the standard deviation of such a difference between the two compared states. CI shows the 95% confidence interval of their difference. Bold entry rows indicates the significant difference.

Conditions | M${}_{\mathit{difference}}$ | SD${}_{\mathit{difference}}$ | 95.0% CI${}_{\mathit{difference}}$ |
---|---|---|---|

F5 | −0.004 | 0.01 | [−0.02 0.01] |

F4 | −0.002 | 0.002 | [−0.005 0.002] |

F6 | −0.01 | 0.01 | [−0.03 0.003] |

FC3 | −0.005 | 0.004 | [−0.01 0.002] |

C2 | −0.003 | 0.002 | [−0.006 0.0001] |

C4 | −0.01 | 0.003 | [−0.01 0.0] |

CPZ | −0.02 | 0.004 | [−0.02 −0.008] |

CP6 | −0.006 | 0.004 | [−0.013 0.0013] |

TP8 | −0.01 | 0.008 | [−0.02 0.005] |

FT7 | 0.03 | 0.01 | [0.01 0.05] |

FT8 | 0.02 | 0.01 | [0.003 0.05] |

TP7 | 0.008 | 0.006 | [−0.003 0.02] |

CP3 | 0.0005 | 0.002 | [−0.004 0.005] |

P5 | 0.01 | 0.002 | [0.007 0.02] |

P1 | 0.003 | 0.001 | [0.001 0.006] |

P4 | 0.006 | 0.001 | [0.004 0.01] |

P6 | 0.02 | 0.003 | [0.01 0.02] |

P8 | 0.01 | 0.01 | [−0.001 0.03] |

PO5 | 0.003 | 0.0004 | [0.002 0.004] |

POZ | 0.01 | 0.002 | [0.007 0.014] |

PO6 | 0.001 | 0.0002 | [0.0002 0.001] |

OZ | 0.012 | 0.004 | [0.005 0.02] |

O2 | 0.003 | 0.002 | [−0.001 0.01] |

**Table A6.**Positive versus Negative channel-wise paired two-sample bootstrap test (10,000 simulation runs) at 95.0% confidence interval (CI) applied on the directional information flow. M and SD refer to the mean difference and the standard deviation of such a difference between the two compared states. CI shows the 95% confidence interval of their difference. Bold entry rows indicates the significant difference.

Conditions | M${}_{\mathit{difference}}$ | SD${}_{\mathit{difference}}$ | 95.0% CI${}_{\mathit{difference}}$ |
---|---|---|---|

F5 | −0.06 | 0.01 | [−0.02 0.01] |

F3 | −0.003 | 0.001 | [−0.004 −0.001] |

F6 | −0.01 | 0.01 | [−0.03 −0.001] |

FC3 | −0.01 | 0.004 | [−0.01 0.002] |

FT7 | −0.02 | 0.01 | [−0.04 0.01] |

FC2 | −0.002 | 0.001 | [−0.004 0.0003] |

C3 | −0.003 | 0.003 | [−0.01 0.003] |

CP3 | −0.001 | 0.002 | [−0.005 0.003] |

CPZ | −0.009 | 0.004 | [−0.02 −0.001] |

CP6 | −0.008 | 0.004 | [−0.02 −0.001] |

O2 | −0.003 | 0.002 | [−0.01 0.001] |

FP1 | 0.01 | 0.003 | [0.002 0.02] |

FPZ | 0.01 | 0.003 | [−0.0004 0.012] |

F7 | 0.004 | 0.002 | [0.001 0.008] |

F1 | 0.002 | 0.001 | [0.0 0.004] |

F2 | 0.001 | 0.0004 | [0.001 0.002] |

F4 | 0.003 | 0.001 | [0.001 0.01] |

C4 | 0.004 | 0.002 | [0.0 0.01] |

T8 | 0.03 | 0.01 | [0.01 0.05] |

TP7 | 0.01 | 0.01 | [0.001 0.02] |

CP2 | 0.002 | 0.001 | [0.001 0.004] |

CP4 | 0.001 | 0.001 | [−0.002 0.004] |

P7 | 0.01 | 0.01 | [−0.01 0.02] |

P5 | 0.006 | 0.003 | [0.001 0.011] |

P3 | 0.003 | 0.001 | [0.001 0.01] |

P1 | 0.004 | 0.001 | [0.002 0.01] |

P2 | 0.003 | 0.001 | [0.001 0.005] |

P4 | 0.004 | 0.002 | [0.001 0.01] |

PO5 | 0.001 | 0.0004 | [0.0004 0.002] |

PO8 | 0.011 | 0.004 | [0.003 0.02] |

OZ | 0.011 | 0.004 | [0.003 0.02] |

**Table A7.**Negative versus Neutral channel-wise paired two-sample bootstrap test (10,000 simulation runs) at 95.0% confidence interval (CI) applied on the directional information flow. M and SD refer to the mean difference and the standard deviation of such a difference between the two compared states. CI shows the 95% confidence interval of their difference. Bold entry rows indicates the significant difference.

Conditions | M${}_{\mathit{difference}}$ | SD${}_{\mathit{difference}}$ | 95.0% CI${}_{\mathit{difference}}$ |
---|---|---|---|

FPZ | −0.002 | 0.002 | [−0.007 0.002] |

F1 | −0.003 | 0.001 | [−0.005 −0.001] |

F2 | −0.001 | 0.0002 | [−0.001 0.0] |

F4 | −0.005 | 0.001 | [−0.008 −0.002] |

FCZ | −0.004 | 0.001 | [−0.007 −0.002] |

C4 | −0.01 | 0.003 | [−0.02 −0.004] |

T8 | −0.02 | 0.01 | [−0.04 0.0] |

CP2 | −0.003 | 0.001 | [−0.004 −0.001] |

F3 | 0.002 | 0.001 | [0.0 0.004] |

FZ | 0.003 | 0.001 | [0.0 0.01] |

FT7 | 0.05 | 0.01 | [0.03 0.07] |

FT8 | 0.02 | 0.01 | [0.01 0.04] |

CP3 | 0.001 | 0.002 | [−0.003 0.005] |

P5 | 0.01 | 0.002 | [0.003 0.01] |

P4 | 0.002 | 0.001 | [0.001 0.003] |

P6 | 0.01 | 0.002 | [0.005 0.012] |

PO5 | 0.002 | 0.0002 | [0.0015 0.0023] |

PO3 | 0.003 | 0.002 | [0.0 0.01] |

POZ | 0.01 | 0.001 | [0.004 0.007] |

PO4 | 0.002 | 0.001 | [0.0 0.005] |

PO6 | 0.001 | 0.0004 | [0.0 0.002] |

CB1 | 0.002 | 0.003 | [−0.004 0.01] |

O2 | 0.01 | 0.002 | [0.002 0.009] |

## References

- Lindquist, K.A.; Wager, T.D.; Kober, H.; Bliss-Moreau, E.; Barrett, L.F. The brain basis of emotion: A meta-analytic review. Behav. Brain Sci.
**2012**, 35, 121–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version] - Lindquist, K.A.; Satpute, A.B.; Wager, T.D.; Weber, J.; Barrett, L.F. The brain basis of positive and negative affect: Evidence from a meta-analysis of the human neuroimaging literature. Cereb. Cortex
**2015**, 26, 1910–1922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version] - Watson, D.; Tellegen, A. Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychol. Bull.
**1985**, 98, 219–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Barrett, F.L.; Russell, J.A. Independence and bipolarity in the structure of current affect. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.
**1998**, 74, 967–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bradley, M.M.; Codispoti, M.; Cuthbert, B.N.; Lang, P.J. Emotion and motivation I: Defensive and appetitive reactions in picture processing. Emotion
**2001**, 1, 276–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lewis, M. The emergence of human emotions. In Handbook of Emotions, 2nd ed.; Lewis, M., Havil -Jones, J.M., Eds.; Guilford: New York, NY, USA, 1993; pp. 253–322. [Google Scholar]
- Farroni, T.; Menon, E.; Rigato, S.; Johnson, M.H. The perception of facial expressions in newborns. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol.
**2007**, 4, 2–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Osgood, C.E. The nature and measurement of meaning. Psychol. Bull.
**1952**, 49, 197–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Wierzbicka, A. Semantics, Culture, and Cognition: Universal Human Concepts in Culture-Specific Configurations; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Barrett, L.F. Are emotions natural kinds? Perspect. Psychol. Sci.
**2006**, 1, 28–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Barrett, L.F.; Ochsner, K.N.; Gross, J.J. On the automaticity of emotion. In Social Psychology and the Unconscious: The Automaticity of Higher Mental Processes; Bargh, J., Ed.; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA; Taylor & Francis Group: Hove, UK, 2007; pp. 173–217. [Google Scholar]
- Ekman, P.; Cordaro, D. What is meant by calling emotions basic. Emot. Rev.
**2011**, 3, 364–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Izard, C.E. Forms and functions of emotions: Matters of emotion?cognition interactions. Emot. Rev.
**2011**, 3, 371–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Panksepp, J.; Watt, D. What is basic about basic emotions? Lasting lessons from affective neuroscience. Emot. Rev.
**2011**, 3, 387–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Duncan, S.; Barrett, L.F. Affect is a form of cognition: A neurobiological analysis. Cogn. Emot.
**2007**, 21, 1184–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version] - Pessoa, L. On the relationship between emotion and cognition. Nat. Rev. Neurosci.
**2008**, 9, 148–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Barrett, L.F. The future of psychology: Connecting mind to brain. Perspect. Psychol. Sci.
**2009**, 4, 326–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Wundt, W. Outlines of Psychology; First Published 1897; Thoemmes Press: Bristol, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Cacioppo, J.T.; Gardner, W.L.; Berntson, G.G. The affect system has parallel and integrative processing components: Form follows function. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.
**1999**, 76, 839–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Norris, C.J.; Gollan, J.; Berntson, G.G.; Cacioppo, J.T. The current status of research on the structure of evaluative space. Biol. Psychol.
**2010**, 84, 422–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Larsen, J.T.; McGraw, A.P.; Cacioppo, J.T. Can people feel happy and sad at the same time? J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.
**2001**, 81, 684–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Barrett, L.F.; Bliss-Moreau, E. Affect as a psychological primitive. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
**2009**, 41, 167–218. [Google Scholar] - Larsen, R.J.; Diener, E. Promises and Problems with the Circumplex Model of Emotion; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1992; pp. 25–59. [Google Scholar]
- Carroll, J.M.; Yik, M.S.; Russell, J.A.; Barrett, L.F. On the psychometric principles of affect. Rev. Gen. Psychol.
**1999**, 3, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Salzman, C.D.; Fusi, S. Emotion, cognition, and mental state representation in amygdala and prefrontal cortex. Annu. Rev. Neurosci.
**2010**, 33, 173–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Vytal, K.; Hamann, S. Neuroimaging support for discrete neural correlates of basic emotions: A voxel-based meta-analysis. J. Cogn. Neurosci.
**2010**, 22, 2864–2885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version] - Kober, H.; Barrett, L.F.; Joseph, J.; Bliss-Moreau, E.; Lindquist, K.; Wager, T.D. Functional grouping and cortical-subcortical interactions in emotion: A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Neuroimage
**2008**, 42, 998–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version] - Murphy, F.C.; Nimmo-Smith, I.A.N.; Lawrence, A.D. Functional neuroanatomy of emotions: A meta-analysis. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci.
**2003**, 3, 207–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Wager, T.D.; Phan, K.L.; Liberzon, I.; Taylor, S.F. Valence, gender, and lateralization of functional brain anatomy in emotion: A meta-analysis of findings from neuroimaging. Neuroimage
**2003**, 19, 513–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kringelbach, M.L.; Rolls, E.T. The functional neuroanatomy of the human orbitofrontal cortex: Evidence from neuroimaging and neuropsychology. Prog. Neurobiol.
**2004**, 72, 341–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Grimm, S.; Schmidt, C.F.; Bermpohl, F.; Heinzel, A.; Dahlem, Y.; Wyss, M.; Hell, D.; Boesiger, P.; Boeker, H.; Northoff, G. Segregated neural representation of distinct emotion dimensions in the prefrontal cortex—An fMRI study. Neuroimage
**2006**, 30, 325–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kensinger, E.A.; Corkin, S. Two routes to emotional memory: Distinct neural processes for valence and arousal. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
**2004**, 101, 3310–3315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Lewis, P.A.; Gritchley, H.D.; Rotshtein, P.; Dolan, R.J. Neural correlates of processing valence and arousal in affective words. Cereb. Cortex
**2007**, 17, 742–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Posner, J.; Russell, J.; Gerber, A.; Gorman, D.; Colibazzi, T.; Yu, S.; Wang, Z.; Kangarlu, A.; Zhu, H.; Peterson, B.S. The neurophysiological bases of emotion: An fMRI study of the affective circumplex using emotion-denoting words. Hum. Brain Mapp.
**2009**, 30, 883–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Wutz, A.; Loonis, R.; Roy, J.E.; Donoghue, J.A.; Miller, E.K. Different levels of category abstraction by different dynamics in different prefrontal areas. Neuron
**2018**, 97, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jamieson, G.A.; Burgess, A.P. Hypnotic induction is followed by state-like changes in the organization of EEG functional connectivity in the theta and beta frequency bands in high-hypnotically susceptible individuals. Front. Hum. Neurosci.
**2014**, 8, 528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version] - Tononi, G.; McIntosh, A.R.; Russell, D.P.; Edelman, G.M. Functional clustering: Identifying strongly interactive brain regions in neuroimaging data. Neuroimage
**1998**, 7, 133–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version] - Han, Y.; Kebschull, J.M.; Campbell, R.A.A.; Cowan, D.; Imhof, F.; Zador, A.M.; Mrsic-Flogel, T.D. The logic of single-cell projections from visual cortex. Nature
**2018**, 556, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version] - Stam, C.J. Nonlinear dynamical analysis of EEG and MEG: Review of an emerging field. Clin. Neurophysiol.
**2005**, 116, 2266–2301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Pereda, E.; Quiroga, R.Q.; Bhattacharya, J. Nonlinear multivariate analysis of neurophysiological signals. Prog. Neurobiol.
**2005**, 77, 1–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version] - Fagerholm, E.D.; Lorenz, R.; Scott, G.; Dinov, M.; Hellyer, P.J.; Mirzaei, N.; Leeson, C.; Carmichael, D.W.; Sharp, D.J.; Shew, W.L.; et al. Cascades and cognitive state: Focused attention incurs subcritical dynamics. J. Neurosci.
**2015**, 35, 4626–4634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Shew, W.L.; Plenz, D. The functional benefits of criticality in the cortex. Neuroscientist
**2013**, 19, 88–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Arieli, A.; Sterkin, A.; Grinvald, A.; Aertsen, A.D. Dynamics of ongoing activity: Explanation of the large variability in evoked cortical responses. Science
**1996**, 273, 1868–1871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - McDonough, I.M.; Nashiro, K. Network complexity as a measure of information processing across resting-state networks: Evidence from the Human Connectome Project. Front. Hum. Neurosci.
**2014**, 8, 409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - McIntosh, A.R.; Vakorin, V.; Kovacevic, N.; Wang, H.; Diaconescu, A.; Protzner, A.B. Spatiotemporal dependency of age-related changes in brain signal variability. Cereb. Cortex
**2013**, 24, 1806–1817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Yang, A.C.; Huang, C.C.; Yeh, H.L.; Liu, M.E.; Hong, C.J.; Tu, P.C.; Chen, J.F.; Huang, N.E.; Peng, C.K.; Lin, C.P.; et al. Complexity of spontaneous BOLD activity in default mode network is correlated with cognitive function in normal male elderly: A multiscale entropy analysis. Neurobiol. Aging
**2013**, 34, 428–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Pearson, J. The human imagination: The cognitive neuroscience of visual mental imagery. Nat. Rev. Neurosci.
**2019**, 273, 1868–1871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Granger, C.W.J. Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica
**1969**, 37, 424–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Geweke, J. Measures of conditional linear dependence and feedback between time series. J. Am. Stat. Assoc.
**1984**, 79, 907–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Friston, K.; Moran, R.; Seth, A.K. Analysing connectivity with Granger causality and dynamic causal modelling. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.
**2013**, 23, 172–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Seth, A.K.; Barrett, A.B.; Barnett, L. Granger causality analysis in neuroscience and neuroimaging. J. Neurosci.
**2015**, 35, 3293–3297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wilber, A.A.; Skelin, I.; Wu, W.; McNaughton, B.L. Laminar organization of encoding and memory reactivation in the parietal cortex. Neuron
**2017**, 95, 1406–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Barnett, L.; Barrett, A.B.; Seth, A.K. Granger causality and transfer entropy are equivalent for Gaussian variables. Phys. Rev. Lett.
**2009**, 103, 238701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Barnett, L.; Bossomaier, T. Transfer entropy as a log-likelihood ratio. Phys. Rev. Lett.
**2013**, 109, 0138105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Schreiber, T. Measuring information transfer. Phys. Rev. Lett.
**2000**, 85, 461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Kaiser, A.; Schreiber, T. Information transfer in continuous processes. Phys. D
**2002**, 166, 43–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Runge, J.; Heitzig, J.; Petoukhov, V.; Kurths, J. Escaping the curse of dimensionality in estimating multivariate transfer entropy. Phys. Rev. Lett.
**2012**, 108, 258701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Barnett, L.; Seth, A.K. The MVGC multivariate Granger causality toolbox: A new approach to Granger-causal inference. J. Neurosci. Methods
**2014**, 223, 50–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version] - Seth, A.K. A MATLAB toolbox for Granger causal connectivity analysis. J. Neurosci. Methods
**2010**, 186, 262–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hu, S.; Dai, G.; Worrell, G.A.; Dai, Q.; Liang, H. Causality analysis of neural connectivity: Critical examination of existing methods and advances of new methods. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw.
**2011**, 22, 829–844. [Google Scholar] - Stokes, P.A.; Purdon, P.L. A study of problems encountered in Granger causality analysis from a neuroscience perspective. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
**2017**, 114, E7063–E7072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Barrett, A.B.; Barnett, L. Granger causality is designed to measure effect, not mechanism. Front. Neuroinform.
**2013**, 7, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Barnett, L.; Barrett, A.B.; Seth, A.K. Solved problems for Granger causality in neuroscience: A response to Stokes and Purdon. NeuroImage
**2018**, 178, 744–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Dhamala, M.; Liang, H.; Bressler, S.L.; Ding, M. Granger-Geweke causality: Estimation and interpretation. NeuroImage
**2018**, 175, 460–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zheng, W.L.; Lu, B.L. Investigating critical frequency bands and channels for EEG-based emotion recognition with deep neural networks. IEEE Trans. Auton. Ment. Dev.
**2015**, 7, 162–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Henry, J.C. Electroencephalography: Basic principles, clinical applications, and related fields. Neurology
**2006**, 67, 2092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Reid, A.T.; Headley, D.B.; Mill, R.D.; Sanchez-Romero, R.; Uddin, L.Q.; Marinazzo, D.; Lurie, D.J.; Valdés-Sosa, P.A.; Hanson, S.J.; Biswal, B.B.; et al. Advancing functional connectivity research from association to causation. Nat. Neurosci.
**2019**, 22, 1751–1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Horwitz, B. The elusive concept of brain connectivity. Neuroimage
**2003**, 19, 466–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Seeley, W.W.; Menon, V.; Schatzberg, A.F.; Keller, J.; Glover, G.H.; Kenna, H.; Reiss, A.L.; Greicius, M.D. Dissociable intrinsic connectivity networks for salience processing and executive control. J. Neurosci.
**2007**, 27, 2349–2356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Smith, S.M.; Fox, P.T.; Miller, K.L.; Glahn, D.C.; Fox, P.M.; Mackay, C.E.; Filippini, N.; Watkins, K.E.; Toro, R.; Laird, A.R.; et al. Correspondence of the brain’s functional architecture during activation and rest. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
**2009**, 106, 13040–13045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Spreng, R.N.; Mar, R.A.; Kim, A.S.N. The common neural basis of autobiographical memory, prospection, navigation, theory of mind, and the default mode. A quantitative meta-analysis. J. Cogn. Neurosci.
**2009**, 21, 489–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Deco, G.; Jirsa, V.K.; McIntosh, A.R. Emerging concepts for the dynamical organization of resting-state activity in the brain. Nat. Rev. Neurosci.
**2011**, 12, 43–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Panksepp, J. Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Alcaro, A.; Huber, R.; Panksepp, J. Behavioral functions of the mesolimbic dopaminergic system: An affective neuroethological perspective. Brain Res. Rev.
**2007**, 56, 283–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Berridge, K.C.; Kringelbach, M.L. Affective neuroscience of pleasure: Reward in humans and animals. Psychopharmacology
**2008**, 199, 457–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Dayan, P.; Huys, Q.J. Serotonin in affective control. Annu. Rev. Neurosci.
**2009**, 32, 95–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Eysenck, S.B.; Eysenck, H.J.; Barrett, P. A revised version of the psychoticism scale. Personal. Individ. Differ.
**1985**, 6, 1170–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Philippot, P. Inducing and assessing differentiated emotion-feeling states in the laboratory. Cogn. Emot.
**1993**, 7, 171–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Lu, Y.; Zheng, W.L.; Li, B.; Lu, B.L. Combining eye movements and EEG to enhance emotion recognition. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 25–31 July 2015; pp. 1170–1176. [Google Scholar]
- Ding, M.; Bressler, S.L.; Yang, W.; Liang, H. Short-window spectral analysis of cortical event-related potentials by adaptive multivariate autoregressive modeling: Data preprocessing, model validation, and variability assessment. Biol. Cybern.
**2000**, 83, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hamilton, J.D. Time Series Analysis; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Kwiatkowski, D.; Phillips, P.C.; Schmidt, P.; Shin, Y. Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root. J. Econ.
**1992**, 54, 159–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Seth, A.K. Causal networks in simulated neural systems. Cogn. Neurodyn.
**2008**, 2, 49–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Seth, A.K.; Dienes, Z.; Cleeremans, A.; Overgaard, M.; Pessoa, L. Measuring consciousness: Relating behavioral and neurophysiological approaches. Trends Cogn. Sci.
**2008**, 12, 314–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Durbin, J.; Watson, G.S. Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression. Biometrika
**1950**, 37, 409–428. [Google Scholar] - Freund, Y.; Schapire, R. A Decision-Theoretic Generalization of on-Line Learning and an Application to Boosting. J. Comput. Syst. Sci.
**1997**, 55, 119–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Rosenthal, R.; DiMatteo, M.R. Meta-analysis: Recent developments n quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annu. Rev. Psychol.
**2001**, 52, 59–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Tomczak, M.; Tomczak, E. The need to report effect size estimates revisited. An overview of some recommended measures of effect size. Trends Sport Sci.
**2014**, 1, 19–25. [Google Scholar] - Buitinck, L.; Louppe, G.; Blondel, M.; Pedregosa, F.; Mueller, A.; Grisel, O.; Niculae, V.; Prettenhofer, P.; Gramfort, A.; Grobler, J.; et al. API design for machine learning software: Experiences from the scikit-learn project. ECML PKDD Work. Lang. Data Min. Mach. Learn.
**2013**, 2, 108–122. [Google Scholar] - Hastie, T.; Rosset, S.; Zhu, J.; Zou, H. Multi-class adaboost. Stat. Its Interface
**2009**, 2, 349–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Seth, A.K. Measuring autonomy and emergence via Granger causality. Artif. Life
**2010**, 16, 179–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version] - Mar, R.A. The neuropsychology of narrative: Story comprehension, story production and their interrelation. Neuropsychologia
**2004**, 42, 1414–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lerner, Y.; Honey, C.J.; Silbert, L.J.; Hasson, U. Topographic mapping of a hierarchy of temporal receptive windows using a narrated story. J. Neurosci.
**2011**, 31, 2906–2915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Hasson, U.; Yang, E.; Vallines, I.; Heeger, D.J.; Rubin, N. A hierarchy of temporal receptive windows in human cortex. J. Neurosci.
**2008**, 28, 2539–2550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Jääskeläinen, I.P.; Koskentalo, K.; Balk, M.H.; Autti, T.; Kauramäki, J.; Pomren, C.; Sams, M. Inter-subject synchronization of prefrontal cortex hemodynamic activity during natural viewing. Open Neuroimaging J.
**2008**, 2, 14–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Saarimäki, H.; Gotsopoulos, A.; Jääskeläinen, I.P.; Lampinen, J.; Vuilleumier, P.; Hari, R.; Sams, M.; Nummenmaa, L. Discrete neural signatures of basic emotions. Cereb. Cortex
**2015**, 26, 2563–2573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Damasio, A.R.; Carvalho, G.B. The nature of feelings: Evolutionary and neurobiological origins. Nat. Rev. Neurosci.
**2013**, 14, 143–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Han, X.; Berg, A.C.; Oh, H.; Samaras, D.; Leung, H.C. Multi-voxel pattern analysis of selective representation of visual working memory in ventral temporal and occipital regions. Neuroimage
**2013**, 73, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Liu, S.; Poh, J.H.; Koh, H.L.; Ng, K.K.; Loke, Y.M.; Lim, J.K.W. Carrying the past to the future: Distinct brain networks underlie individual differences in human spatial working memory capacity. Neuroimage
**2018**, 176, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Yamashita, M.; Yoshihara, Y.; Hashimoto, R.; Yahata, N.; Ichikawa, N.; Sakai, Y. A prediction model of working memory across health and psychiatric disease using whole-brain functional connectivity. ELife
**2018**, 7, e38844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Avery, E.W.; Yoo, K.; Rosenberg, M.D.; Greene, A.S.; Gao, S.; Na, D.L.; Scheinost, D.; Constable, T.R.; Chun, M.M. Distributed Patterns of Functional Connectivity Predict Working Memory Performance in Novel Healthy and Memory-impaired Individuals. J. Cogn. Neurosci.
**2019**, 7, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Forbes, C.E.; Grafman, J. The role of the human prefrontal cortex in social cognition and moral judgment. Annu. Rev. Neurosci.
**2010**, 33, 299–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version] - Svoboda, E.; McKinnon, M.C.; Levine, B. The functional neuroanatomy of autobiographical memory: A meta-analysis. Neuropsychologia
**2006**, 44, 2189–2208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version] - Krain, A.L.; Wilson, A.M.; Arbuckle, R.; Castellanos, F.X.; Milham, M.P. Distinct neural mechanisms of risk and ambiguity: A meta-analysis of decisionmaking. Neuroimage
**2006**, 32, 477–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Owen, A.M.; McMillan, K.; Laird, A.R.; Bullmore, E. N-Back working memory paradigm: A meta-analysis of normative functional neuroimaging studies. Hum. Brain Mapp.
**2005**, 25, 46–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Northoff, G. Is emotion regulation self-regulation? Trends Cogn. Sci.
**2006**, 9, 408–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dosenbach, N.U.; Visscher, K.M.; Palmer, E.D.; Miezin, F.M.; Wenger, K.K.; Kang, H.C.; Burgund, E.D.; Grimes, A.L.; Schlaggar, B.L.; Petersen, S.E. A core system for the implementation of task sets. Neuron
**2006**, 50, 799–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Van Snellenberg, J.X.; Wager, T.D. Cognitive and motivational functions of the human prefrontal cortex. In Luria’s Legacy in the 21st Century; Goldberg, E., Bougakov, D., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009; pp. 30–61. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, D.J.; Jann, K.; Fan, C.; Qiao, Y.; Zang, Y.F.; Lu, H.; Yang, Y. Neurophysiological basis of multi-scale entropy of brain complexity and its relationship with functional connectivity. Front. Neurosci.
**2018**, 12, 352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Waites, A.B.; Stanislavsky, A.; Abbott, D.F.; Jackson, G.D. Effect of prior cognitive state on resting state networks measured with functional connectivity. Hum. Brain Mapp.
**2005**, 24, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Liu, M.; Song, C.; Liang, Y.; Knöpfel, T.; Zhou, C. Assessing spatiotemporal variability of brain spontaneous activity by multiscale entropy and functional connectivity. NeuroImage
**2019**, 198, 198–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Vakorin, V.A.; Lippé, S.; McIntosh, A.R. Variability of brain signals processed locally transforms into higher connectivity with brain development. J. Neurosci.
**2011**, 31, 6405–6413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version] - Barrett, A.B.; Seth, A.K. Practical measures of integrated information for time-series data. PLoS Comput. Biol.
**2011**, 7, e1001052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Seth, A.K.; Edelman, G.M. Environment and behavior influence the complexity of evolved neural networks. Adapt. Behav.
**2004**, 12, 5–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lungarella, M.; Sporns, O. Mapping information flow in sensorimotor networks. PLoS Comput. Biol.
**2006**, 2, e144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Barrett, L.F. Solving the emotion paradox: Categorization and the experience of emotion. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev.
**2006**, 10, 20–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Barrett, L.F. Bridging token identity theory and supervenience theory through psychological construction. Psychol. Inq.
**2011**, 22, 115–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gross, J.J.; Barrett, L.F. Emotion generation and emotion regulation: One or two depends on your point of view. Emot. Rev.
**2011**, 3, 8–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Miller, E.K.; Nieder, A.; Freedman, D.J.; Wallis, J.D. Neural correlates of categories and concepts. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.
**2003**, 13, 198–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cover, T.M.; Thomas, J.A. Elements of Information Theory, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Friston, K. The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nat. Rev. Neurosci.
**2010**, 11, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Kragel, P.A.; Reddan, M.C.; LaBar, K.S.; Wager, T.D. Emotion schemas are embedded in the human visual system. Sci. Adv.
**2019**, 5, eaaw4358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version] - Zadbood, A.; Chen, J.; Leong, Y.C.; Norman, K.A.; Hasson, U. How we transmit memories to other brains: Constructing shared neural representations via communication. Cereb. Cortex
**2017**, 27, 4988–5000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version] - Baucom, L.B.; Wedell, D.H.; Wang, J.; Blitzer, D.N.; Shinkareva, S.V. Decoding the neural representation of affective states. Neuroimage
**2012**, 59, 718–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mitchell, T.M.; Shinkareva, S.V.; Carlson, A.; Chang, K.M.; Malave, V.L.; Mason, R.A.; Just, M.A. Predicting human brain activity associated with the meanings of nouns. Science
**2008**, 320, 1191–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]

**Figure 1.**(

**A**) schematic diagram of an experiment as described in [65]. Each experiment included a total of fifteen movie clips (i.e., n = 15, audiovisual), per participant. In this setting, each movie clip was proceeded with a five-second hint to prepare the participants for its start. This was then followed by a four-minute movie clip. At the end of each movie clip, the participants were asked to answer three questions that followed the Philippot [78]. These questions were the type of emotion that the participants actually felt while watching the movie clips, whether they watched the original movies from which the clips were taken, and whether they understood the content of those clips. The participants responded to these three questions by scoring them in the scale of 1 to 5; (

**B**) arrangement of the EEG electrodes in this experiment. The sixty-two EEG channels were: FP1, FPZ, FP2, AF3, AF4, F7, F5, F3, F1, FZ, F2, F4, F6, F8, FT7, FC5, FC3, FC1, FCZ, FC2, FC4, FC6, FT8, T7, C5, C3, C1, CZ, C2, C4, C6, T8, TP7, CP5, CP3, CP1, CPZ, CP2, CP4, CP6, TP8, P7, P5, P3, P1, PZ, P2, P4, P6, P8, PO7, PO5, PO3, POZ, PO4, PO6, PO8, CB1, O1, OZ, O2, CB2.

**Figure 2.**Paired Spearman correlation between participants’ unit causal density (ucd) values (

**A**) Positive versus Negative; (

**B**) Positive versus Neutral; (

**C**) Negative versus Neutral. The subplots on the right column correspond to the bootstrap correlation test (10,000 simulation runs) at 95.0% confidence interval. In these subplots, the zeros correspond to the ucd values that were below the significant level of 0.7 i.e., the upper bound of the one-sample test of significance (10,000 simulation runs) at 95.0% confidence interval (Mean (M) = 0.69, Standard Deviation (SD) = 0.30, Confidence Interval (CI)${}_{95.0\%}$ = [0.68 0.70]). For results prior to the application of the bootstrap test to determine the ucd values’ significant level, see Appendix A.

**Figure 3.**(

**A**) grand averages of the spatial map of unit causal density (ucd) in Negative, Neutral, and Positive affects states. Incremental pattern of ucd values from Negative to Positive affect is evident in these subplots; (

**B**) EEG channels’ arrangement associated with distribution of ucd values; (

**C**) descriptive statistics of the ucd values in Negative, Neutral, and Positive affects states. Asterisks mark the significant differences between these values.

**Figure 4.**Paired two-sample bootstrap test of significance (10,000 simulation runs) at 95.0% (i.e., p < 0.05) confidence interval (CI) associated with the participants’ whole-brain unit causal densities (ucd). Compared pairs of affect are (

**A**) Positive versus Neutral; (

**B**) Positive versus Negative; and (

**C**) Negative versus Neutral. In these subplots, the x-axis shows ${\mu}_{i}-{\mu}_{j},\phantom{\rule{3.33333pt}{0ex}}i\ne j$ where i and j refer to one of the Negative, Neutral, or Positive affect states. The blue line marks the null hypothesis $H0$ i.e., non-significant difference between the two states’ ucd values. The red lines are the boundaries of the 95.0% confidence interval. The yellow line shows the location of the average ${\mu}_{i}-{\mu}_{j},\phantom{\rule{3.33333pt}{0ex}}i\ne j$ for 10,000 simulation runs.

**Figure 5.**Negative affect’s channel-wise information flow. These subplots identify a bi-hemispheric brain activity in response to Negative affect. They also show that a number of channels are associated with higher short- as well as long-range information (e.g., F5, FC5, FT7, FC6, F8, F6, CZ’, CPZ, CB2). Although these channels appear to have higher local influence in the form of information flow, their corresponding flow of information extend beyond their designated hemispheres, thereby indicating the presence of cross-hemispheric whole-brain information flow and communication. The values in these subplots are scaled within $[0,\cdots ,1]$ for better comparison.

**Figure 6.**Neutral affect’s channel-wise information flow. These subplots identify a bi-hemispheric brain activity in response to Neutral affect. They also show that a number of channels are associated with higher short- as well as long-range information (e.g., F6, F8, FC5, FC6, CZ, CP5, T8, CB2). Although these channels appear to have higher local influence in the form of information flow, their corresponding flow of information extend beyond their designated hemispheres, thereby indicating the presence of cross-hemispheric whole-brain information flow and communication. The values in these subplots are scaled within $[0,\cdots ,1]$ for better comparison.

**Figure 7.**Positive affect’s channel-wise information flow. These subplots identify a bi-hemispheric brain activity in response to a Positive affect. They also show that a number of channels are associated with higher short- as well as long-range information (e.g., F8, FT7, FC5, FC6, FC8, C5, CZ, C6, CP5, CB2). Although these channels appear to have higher local influence in the form of information flow, their corresponding flow of information extend beyond their designated hemispheres, thereby indicating the presence of cross-hemispheric whole-brain information flow and communication. The values in these subplots are scaled within $[0,\cdots ,1]$ for better comparison.

**Figure 8.**(

**A**) spatial map of feature importance by Adaboost meta-estimator pertinent to the trained Adaboost meta-estimator on the ucd values associated with Negative, Neutral, and Positive affects (one-sample bootstrap test of significance at 95% confidence interval: M = 0.13, SD = 0.03, CI = [0.08 0.21]). The right subplot shows the EEG channels’ arrangement; (

**B**) Adaboost prediction accuracy in Negative, Neutral, and Positive affects in 1-holdout setting using whole-brain ucd values; (

**C**) Adaboost prediction accuracy in Negative, Neutral, and Positive affects in 1-holdout setting using subset of channels with their importance within or above the one-sample bootstrap test of significance (10,000 simulation runs) at 95.0% confidence interval on these feature importance values. In (

**B**,

**C**), the correct predictions, per affect, are the diagonal entries of these tables and the off-diagonal entries show the percentage of each of the affects that was misclassified (e.g., Positive affect misclassified as Negative affect).

**Table 1.**Bootstrap (10,000 simulation runs) 95.0% confidence intervals (CI) associated with the Spearman correlation between Negative, Neutral, and Positive affects.

Conditions | r | p (Two-Tailed) | CI${}_{95\%}$ |
---|---|---|---|

Positive vs. Negative | 0.58 | 0.00001 | [0.53 0.63] |

ine Positive vs. Neutral | 0.58 | 0.00001 | [0.53 0.63] |

ine Negative vs. Neutral | 0.53 | 0.00001 | [0.47 0.59] |

**Table 2.**Paired two-sample bootstrap test of significance (10,000 simulation runs) at 95.0% confidence interval (CI) associated with the participants’ whole-brain unit causal density (ucd) values. Compared pairs of affect are: Positive versus Neutral, Positive versus Negative, and Negative versus Neutral. M and SD refer to the mean difference and the standard deviation of such a difference between the two compared states. CI shows the 95% confidence interval of their difference. Bold entry rows indicate the significant difference.

Conditions | M${}_{\mathit{difference}}$ | SD${}_{\mathit{difference}}$ | 95.0% CI${}_{\mathit{difference}}$ |
---|---|---|---|

Positive versus Neutral | 0.07 | 0.02 | [0.02 0.11] |

ine Positive versus Negative | 0.09 | 0.02 | [0.04 0.14] |

ine Negative versus Neutral | −0.02 | 0.02 | [−0.07 0.02] |

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Keshmiri, S.; Shiomi, M.; Ishiguro, H.
Emergence of the Affect from the Variation in the Whole-Brain Flow of Information. *Brain Sci.* **2020**, *10*, 8.
https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10010008

**AMA Style**

Keshmiri S, Shiomi M, Ishiguro H.
Emergence of the Affect from the Variation in the Whole-Brain Flow of Information. *Brain Sciences*. 2020; 10(1):8.
https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10010008

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Keshmiri, Soheil, Masahiro Shiomi, and Hiroshi Ishiguro.
2020. "Emergence of the Affect from the Variation in the Whole-Brain Flow of Information" *Brain Sciences* 10, no. 1: 8.
https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10010008