Supplementary Materials: “Task-modulated and resting-state functional connectivity of the amygdala”
Xin Di (), Jia Huang, Bharat B. Biswal
This document contains supplementary results that support the paper “Task-modulated and resting-state functional connectivity of the amygdala”. The contents of this material include Supplementary Figure S1 and Tables S1 through S9.
Supplementary Figure S1 Meta-analysis results of amygdala PPI effects when using the left (red) and right (blue) amygdala as a seed. The activation likelihood maps were thresholded at uncorrected p < 0.01 and a cluster-level p < 0.05. Numbers near each slice represent MNI (Montreal Neurological Institute) z coordinates. Please note that direct subtraction analysis between the left and right seeds did not show significant differences.
Supplementary Table S1 List of all contrasts that were used in the main meta-analysis of amygdala PPI studies.
Study # / First author / Year / Contrast / L/R a / +/- b1 / Akitsuki / 2009 / pain caused by others vs. pain caused by self / left / yes
2 / Amting / 2009 / incongruent vs. congruent of facial expression / averaged / yes
3 / Amting / 2010 / perceived vs. unperceived fearful face / right / yes
4 / Banks / 2007 / reappraise vs. maintain / left / no
5a / Bruneau / 2015 / emotionally painful vs. physically painful / averaged / yes
5b / Bruneau / 2015 / emotionally painful vs. physically painful / averaged / yes
6 / Cohen / 2008 / win vs. lose of feedback / averaged / no
7 / Comte / 2014 / negative vs. positive affective stimuli / right / yes
8 / Decety / 2011 / imagine being harmed vs. harming / left / no
9 / Erk / 2010 / reappraise vs. maintain / left / no
10 / Fakra / 2008 / labeling vs. matching of facial expressions / pooled / no
11 / Foland / 2008 / labeling vs. matching of facial expressions / left / no
12 / Gianaros / 2012 / incongruent vs. congruent / right / no
13 / Gold / 2014 / threat vs. nonthreat conditioning / right / no
14 / Grabenhorst / 2013 / health label vs. taste label of food picture / right / no
15 / Hermans / 2012 / aversive picture vs. fixation / averaged / no
16 / Herrmann / 2015 / aversive vs. neutral anticipation (sustained) / right / yes
17 / Iidaka / 2001 / negative vs. positive of emotional face / left / no
18 / Kanske / 2011 / reappraise vs. distraction / left / yes
19 / Kienast / 2008 / negative vs. neutral picture / left / no
20 / Koelsch / 2013 / joy vs. fear of music / pooled / yes
21 / Larson / 2009 / downward vs. upward triangles / left / no
22 / Maquet / 1998 / REM vs. other stage / pooled / no
23 / Meier / 2005 / harmful vs. baseline / averaged / no
24 / Mende-Siedlecki / 2013 / neutral face vs. other stimuli / pooled / no
25 / Molapour / 2015 / Acquisition: CR Black > CR White / right / yes
26 / Monk / 2008 / angry vs. neutral facial expressions / right / yes
27 / Morris / 1998 / fearful vs. happy facial expressions / left / yes
28 / Morris / 2001 / food vs. non-food pictures / left / no
29 / Mukherjee / 2014 / approachability vs. gender judgment / pooled / no
30 / Murray / 2014 / negative vs. neutral association imagery / left / no
31 / Pasley / 2004 / suppressed face vs. suppressed chair / left / no
32 / Pichon / 2012 / threat vs. neutral facial expressions / right / no
33 / Ponz / 2010 / conditioned vs. unconditioned stimuli / right / no
34 / Sato / 2016 / dynamic vs. static expression / right / no
35 / Schienle / 2013 / Placebo vs. no placebo x disgust vs. neutral pictures / pooled / no
36 / Schmitgen / 2016 / dynamic vs. static expression / right / no
37 / Skelly / 2012 / affective face video vs. baseline (motivated) / pooled / no
38 / Spielberg / 2014 / threat face vs. neutral shape / pooled / yes
39 / Sripada / 2014 / reappraisal vs. maintain / right / no
40 / Stegmayer / 2014 / working memory vs. judgment / right / no
41 / Sterpenich / 2006 / negative vs. neutral emotional associations / right / no
42 / Stevens / 2013 / fearful vs. neutral facial expressions / pooled / no
43 / Tottenham / 2012 / mother vs. stranger pictures / left / no
44 / Troiani / 2014 / suppressed face vs. suppressed house / left / no
45 / van Wingen / 2011 / negative facial expressions vs. elipses / right / no
46 / Williams / 2006 / fearful vs. neutral facial expressions (conscious) / pooled / yes
47 / Winecoff / 2008 / reappraisal vs. maintain / pooled / no
48 / Xu / 2013 / frame effect / averaged / yes
49 / Yoder / 2015 / MMA > CAPO (without covariance) / right c / yes
a, This indicates whether a paper used the “left”, ‘right’, or left/right “averaged” amygdala as a seed region in their analysis. If a paper used both left and right seeds, we pooled all the results together for this analysis.
b, This indicates that coordinates of positive and negative effects were merged together in this contrast.
c, Results of the right BLA and CE nuclei were pooled together.
Supplementary Table S2 List of all contrasts that were used in the meta-analysis of left amygdala.
Study # / First author / Year / Contrast / +/- a1 / Akitsuki / 2009 / pain caused by others vs. pain caused by self / yes
4 / Banks / 2007 / reappraise vs. maintain / no
8 / Decety / 2011 / imagine being harmed vs. harming / no
9 / Erk / 2010 / reappraise vs. maintain / no
10 / Fakra / 2008 / labeling vs. matching of facial expressions / no
11 / Foland / 2008 / labeling vs. matching of facial expressions / no
17 / Iidaka / 2001 / negative vs. positive of emotional face / no
18 / Kanske / 2011 / reappraise vs. distraction / yes
19 / Kienast / 2008 / negative vs. neutral picture / no
20 / Koelsch / 2013 / joy vs. fear of music / yes
21 / Larson / 2009 / downward vs. upward triangles / no
22 / Maquet / 1998 / REM vs. other stage / no
24 / Mende-Siedlecki / 2013 / neutral face vs. other stimuli / no
27 / Morris / 1998 / fearful vs. happy facial expressions / yes
28 / Morris / 2001 / food vs. non-food pictures / no
29 / Mukherjee / 2014 / approachability vs. gender judgment / no
30 / Murray / 2014 / negative vs. neutral association imagery / no
31 / Pasley / 2004 / suppressed face vs. suppressed chair / no
35 / Schienle / 2013 / Placebo vs. no placebo x disgust vs. neutral pictures / no
37 / Skelly / 2012 / affective face video vs. baseline (motivated) / no
38 / Spielberg / 2014 / threat face vs. neutral shape / yes
42 / Stevens / 2013 / fearful vs. neutral facial expressions / no
43 / Tottenham / 2012 / mother vs. stranger pictures / no
44 / Troiani / 2014 / suppressed face vs. suppressed house / no
46 / Williams / 2006 / fearful vs. neutral facial expressions (conscious) / yes
47 / Winecoff / 2008 / reappraisal vs. maintain / no
a, This indicates that coordinates of positive and negative effects were merged together in this contrast.
Supplementary Table S3 List of all contrasts that were used in the meta-analysis of right amygdala.
Study # / First author / Year / Contrast / +/- a3 / Amting / 2010 / perceived vs. unperceived fearful face / yes
7 / Comte / 2014 / negative vs. positive affective stimuli / yes
10 / Fakra / 2008 / labeling vs. matching of facial expressions / no
12 / Gianaros / 2012 / incongruent vs. congruent / no
13 / Gold / 2014 / threat vs. nothreat conditioning / no
14 / Grabenhorst / 2013 / health label vs. taste label of food picture / no
16 / Herrmann / 2015 / aversive vs. neutral anticipation (sustained) / yes
17 / Iidaka / 2001 / neutral vs. negative of emotional face / no
20 / Koelsch / 2013 / joy vs. fear of music / yes
22 / Maquet / 1998 / REM vs. other stage / no
24 / Mende-Siedlecki / 2013 / neutral face vs. other stimuli / no
25 / Molapour / 2015 / Acquisition: CR Black > CR White / yes
26 / Monk / 2008 / angry vs. neutral facial expressions / yes
29 / Mukherjee / 2014 / approachability vs. gender judgment / no
32 / Pichon / 2012 / threat vs. neutral facial expressions / no
33 / Ponz / 2010 / conditioned vs. unconditioned stimuli / no
34 / Sato / 2016 / dynamic vs. static expression / no
35 / Schienle / 2013 / Placebo vs. no placebo x disgust vs. neutral pictures / no
36 / Schmitgen / 2016 / dynamic vs. static expression / no
37 / Skelly / 2012 / affective face video vs. baseline (motivated) / no
38 / Spielberg / 2014 / threat face vs. neutral shape / yes
39 / Sripada / 2014 / reappraisal vs. maintain / no
40 / Stegmayer / 2014 / working memory vs. judgment / no
41 / Sterpenich / 2006 / negative vs. neutral emotional associations / no
42 / Stevens / 2013 / fearful vs. neutral facial expressions / no
45 / van Wingen / 2011 / negative facial expressions vs. elipses / no
46 / Williams / 2006 / fearful vs. neutral facial expressions (conscious) / yes
47 / Winecoff / 2008 / reappraisal vs. maintain / no
49 / Yoder b / 2015 / MMA > CAPO (without covariance) / yes
a, This indicates that coordinates of positive and negative effects were merged together in this contrast.
b, Results of the right BLA and CE nuclei were pooled together.
Supplementary Table S4 List of all contrasts that were used in the meta-analysis of fear processing.
Study # / First author / Year / Contrast / Seeds aIncreased connectivity
3 / Amting / 2010 / perceived vs. unperceived fearful face / right
13 / Gold / 2014 / threat vs. nothreat conditioning / right
15 / Hermans / 2012 / aversive picture vs. fixation / averaged
20 / Koelsch / 2013 / joy vs. fear of music / left
23 / Meier / 2015 / harmful vs. baseline pictures / averaged
26 / Monk / 2008 / angry vs. neutral facial expressions / right
27 / Morris / 1998 / fearful vs. happy facial expressions / left
31 / Pasley / 2004 / suppressed face vs. suppressed chair / left
38 / Spielberg / 2014 / threat face vs. neutral shape / pooled
42 / Stevens / 2013 / fearful vs. neutral facial expressions / pooled
44 / Troiani / 2014 / suppressed fearful face vs. suppressed house / left
46 / Williams / 2006 / fearful vs. neutral facial expressions (conscious) / pooled
Decreased connectivity
3 / Amting / 2010 / perceived vs. unperceived fearful face / right
20 / Koelsch / 2013 / joy vs. fear of music / pooled
26 / Monk / 2008 / angry vs. neutral facial expressions / right
27 / Morris / 1998 / fearful vs. happy facial expressions / left
32 / Pichon / 2012 / threat vs. neutral facial expressions / right
38 / Spielberg / 2014 / threat face vs. neutral shape / pooled
45 / van Wingen / 2011 / negative facial expressions vs. elipses / right
46 / Williams / 2006 / fearful vs. neutral facial expressions (conscious) / pooled
a, This indicates whether a paper used the “left”, ‘right’, or left/right “averaged” amygdala as a seed region in their analysis. If a paper used both left and right seeds, we pooled all the results together for this analysis.
Supplementary Table S5 List of all contrasts that were used in the meta-analysis of face processing.
Study # / First author / Year / Contrast / Seeds aIncreased connectivity
24 / Mende-Siedlecki / 2013 / neutral face vs. other stimuli / pooled
31 / Pasley / 2004 / suppressed fearful face vs. suppressed chair / left
37 / Skelly / 2012 / affective face video vs. baseline (motivated) / pooled
38 / Spielberg / 2014 / threat face vs. neutral shape / pooled
44 / Troiani / 2014 / suppressed fearful face vs. suppressed house / left
a, This indicates whether a paper used the “left” or ‘right’ amygdala as a seed region in their analysis. If a paper used both left and right seeds, we pooled all the results together for this analysis.
Supplementary Table S6 List of all contrasts that were used in the meta-analysis of emotion regulation.
Study # / First author / Year / Contrast / Seeds aIncreased connectivity
4 / Banks / 2007 / reappraise vs. maintain / left
9 / Erk / 2010 / reappraise vs. maintain / left
18 / Kanske / 2011 / reappraise vs. distraction / left
39 / Sripada / 2014 / reappraise vs. maintain / right
47 / Winecoff / 2008 / reappraise vs. maintain / pooled
a, This indicates whether a paper used the “left” or ‘right’ amygdala as a seed region in their analysis. If a paper used both left and right seeds, we pooled all the results together for this analysis.
Supplementary Table S7 ALE analysis results of the left amygdala PPI effects. The clusters were thresholded at uncorrected p < 0.01 and a cluster level p < 0.05. X, y, and z coordinates are given in MNI space.
Cluster # / Volume (mm3) / Extrema / x / y / z / Label1 / 2328 / 0.013957 / -4 / -24 / -4 / L. Midbrain
0.010947 / -16 / -22 / -10 / L. Midbrain
0.009501 / -14 / -36 / -6 / L. Parahippocampal Gyrus, BA 30
2 / 1472 / 0.015771 / -40 / -84 / -8 / L. Middle Occipital Gyrus, BA 18
0.015001 / -40 / -78 / -10 / L. Fusiform Gyrus, BA 19
3 / 1456 / 0.015859 / 28 / 2 / -26 / R. Parahippocampal Gyrus, BA 34
0.010819 / 34 / 2 / -16 / R. Putamen
4 / 1288 / 0.0123 / -34 / 18 / -22 / L. Inferior Frontal Gyrus, BA 47
0.011664 / -42 / 24 / -10 / L. Inferior Frontal Gyrus, BA 47
0.009868 / -32 / 12 / -16 / L. Inferior Frontal Gyrus, BA 13
0.009473 / -42 / 18 / -20 / L. Inferior Frontal Gyrus, BA 47
5 / 944 / 0.016734 / 6 / 24 / 48 / Superior Frontal Gyrus, BA 8
0.008718 / -4 / 14 / 44 / Medial Frontal Gyrus, BA 32
6 / 840 / 0.013742 / 40 / 24 / -6 / R. Insula, BA 13
7 / 808 / 0.011821 / 36 / 28 / -24 / R. Inferior Frontal Gyrus, BA 47
0.01007 / 28 / 16 / -18 / R. Inferior Frontal Gyrus, BA 47
0.009405 / 28 / 24 / -22 / R. Inferior Frontal Gyrus, BA 47
8 / 704 / 0.013126 / 4 / 10 / 54 / R. Superior Frontal Gyrus, BA 6
9 / 664 / 0.012545 / -40 / -64 / -10 / L. Fusiform Gyrus, BA 37
0.00914 / -36 / -54 / -14 / L. Fusiform Gyrus, BA 37
10 / 632 / 0.017032 / 36 / -84 / 8 / R. Middle Occipital Gyrus, BA 18
11 / 616 / 0.011388 / 36 / -50 / -20 / R. Cerebellum, Anterior Lobe
12 / 568 / 0.014681 / 36 / -34 / -14 / R. Parahippocampal Gyrus, BA 36
13 / 512 / 0.012134 / -36 / -46 / 36 / L. Supramarginal Gyrus, BA 40
L, left; R, right; BA, Brodmann’s area.