Advertisement

Medial prefrontal cortex involvement in aesthetic appreciation of paintings: a tDCS study

  • Zaira CattaneoEmail author
  • Chiara Ferrari
  • Susanna Schiavi
  • Ivan Alekseichuk
  • Andrea Antal
  • Marcos Nadal
Research Article
First Online:
  • 144 Downloads

Abstract

Among the brain regions involved in the aesthetic evaluation of paintings, the prefrontal cortex seems to play a pivotal role. In particular, consistent neuroimaging evidence indicates that activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (mainly in the left hemisphere) and in medial and orbital sectors of the prefrontal cortex is linked to viewing aesthetically pleasing images. In this study, we focused on the contribution of the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) in mediating aesthetic decisions about paintings. We found that enhancing excitability in this region via anodal tDCS led participants to judge paintings as more beautiful. Although significant, the effects were moderate, possibly due to the neutral affective value of the artworks we used, suggesting that activity in mPFC may be critically dependent on the affective impact of the paintings.

Keywords

Neuroaesthetics Medial prefrontal cortex tDCS Brain stimulation Beauty 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a PRIN Grant (2015WXAXJF) by Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research to Z.C and by Mondino Foundation “Ricerca Corrente” funds.

References

  1. Alekseichuk I, Turi Z, Amador de Lara G, Antal A, Paulus W (2016) Spatial working memory in humans depends on theta and high gamma synchronization in the prefrontal cortex. Curr Biol 26(12):1513–1521PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baayen RH, Davidson DJ, Bates DM (2008) Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. J Mem Lang 59(4):390–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barr DJ, Levy R, Scheepers C, Tily HJ (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. J Mem Lang 68(3):255–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B (2013) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes, R package version 0.999999-2. http://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html
  5. Batt R, Palmiero M, Nakatani C, van Leeuwen C (2010) Style and spectral power: processing of abstract and representational art in artists and non-artists. Perception 39(12):1659–1671PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berridge KC, Kringelbach ML (2015) Pleasure systems in the brain. Neuron 86:646–664PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bertossi E, Peccenini L, Solmi A, Avenanti A, Ciaramelli E (2017) Transcranial direct current stimulation of the medial prefrontal cortex dampens mind-wandering in men. Sci Rep 7(1):16962PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boccia M, Barbetti S, Piccardi L, Guariglia C, Ferlazzo F, Giannini AM, Zaidel DW (2016) Where does brain neural activation in aesthetic responses to visual art occur? Meta-analytic evidence from neuroimaging studies. Neurosci Biobehav R 60:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brieber D, Nadal M, Leder H, Rosenberg R (2014) Art in time and space: context modulates the relation between art experience and viewing time. PLoS ONE 9(6):e99019PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown S, Gao X, Tisdelle L, Eickhoff SB, Liotti M (2011) Naturalizing aesthetics: brain areas for aesthetic appraisal across sensory modalities. Neuroimage 58(1):250–258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cattaneo Z (2019) Non-invasive brain stimulation: an overview of available approaches for research in neuroaesthetics. Empir Stud Arts 37(2):153–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cattaneo Z, Pisoni A, Papagno C (2011) Transcranial direct current stimulation over Broca’s region improves phonemic and semantic fluency in healthy individuals. Neuroscience 183:64–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cattaneo Z, Lega C, Flexas A, Nadal M, Munar E, Cela-Conde CJ (2014a) The world can look better: enhancing beauty experience with brain stimulation. SCAN 9:1713–1721PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cattaneo Z, Lega C, Gardelli C, Merabet LB, Cela-Conde CJ, Nadal M (2014b) The role of prefrontal and parietal cortices in esthetic appreciation of representational and abstract art: a TMS study. Neuroimage 99:443–450PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cattaneo Z, Lega C, Ferrari C, Vecchi T, Cela-Conde CJ, Silvanto J, Nadal M (2015) The role of the lateral occipital cortex in aesthetic appreciation of representational and abstract paintings: a TMS study. Brain Cognit 95:44–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cattaneo Z, Schiavi S, Silvanto J, Nadal M (2017) A TMS study on the contribution of visual area V5 to the perception of implied motion in art and its appreciation. Cogn Neurosci 8:59–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cazzato V, Mele S, Urgesi C (2016) Different contributions of visual and motor brain areas during liking judgments of same-and different-gender bodies. Brain Res 1646:98–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cela-Conde CJ, Marty G, Maestú F, Ortiz T, Munar E, Fernández A, Roca M, Rossello J, Quesney F (2004) Activation of the prefrontal cortex in the human visual aesthetic perception. PNAS 101(16):6321–6325PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cela-Conde CJ, Ayala FJ, Munar E, Maestú F, Nadal M, Capó MA, del Río D, López-Ibor JJ, Ortiz T, Mirasso C, Marty G (2009) Sex-related similarities and differences in the neural correlates of beauty. PNAS 106(10):3847–3852PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cela-Conde CJ, García-Prieto J, Ramasco JJ, Mirasso CR, Bajo R, Munar E, Flexas A, del-Pozo F, Maestú F (2013) Dynamics of brain networks in the aesthetic appreciation. PNAS 110:10454–10461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chalmers FG (1977) Women as art viewers: sex differences and aesthetic preference. Stud Art Educ 18(2):49–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chatterjee A, Vartanian O (2016) Neuroscience of aesthetics. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1369(1):172–194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chudasama Y, Daniels TE, Gorrin DP, Rhodes SE, Rudebeck PH, Murray EA (2013) The role of the anterior cingulate cortex in choices based on reward value and reward contingency. Cereb Cortex 23(12):2884–2898PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cloutier J, Heatherton TF, Whalen PJ, Kelley WM (2008) Are attractive people rewarding? Sex differences in the neural substrates of facial attractiveness. J Cogn Neurosci 20(6):941–951PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Csifcsák G, Boayue NM, Puonti O, Thielscher A, Mittner M (2018) Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation for treating depression: a modeling study. J Affect Disorders 234:164–173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cupchik GC, Vartanian O, Crawley A, Mikulis DJ (2009) Viewing artworks: contributions of cognitive control and perceptual facilitation to aesthetic experience. Brain Cogn 70(1):84–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. De Pisapia N, Barchiesi G, Jovicich J, Cattaneo L (2018) The role of medial prefrontal cortex in processing emotional self-referential information: a combined TMS/fMRI study. Brain Imaging Behav 13(3):1–12Google Scholar
  28. Dedoncker J, Brunoni AR, Baeken C, Vanderhasselt MA (2016) A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in healthy and neuropsychiatric samples: influence of stimulation parameters. Brain Stimul 9(4):501–517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Di Dio C, Ardizzi M, Massaro D, Di Cesare G, Gilli G, Marchetti A, Gallese V (2016) Human, nature, dynamism: the effects of content and movement perception on brain activations during the aesthetic judgment of representational paintings. Front Hum Neurosci 9:705PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Etkin A, Egner T, Kalisch R (2011) Emotional processing in anterior cingulate and medial prefrontal cortex. Trends Cogn Sci 15(2):85–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Everaert J, Koster EH, Derakshan N (2012) The combined cognitive bias hypothesis in depression. Clin Psychol Rev 32(5):413–424PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Faria P, Hallett M, Miranda PC (2011) A finite element analysis of the effect of electrode area and inter-electrode distance on the spatial distribution of the current density in tDCS. J Neural Eng 8(6):066017PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ferrari C, Lega C, Tamietto M, Nadal M, Cattaneo Z (2015) I find you more attractive… after (prefrontal cortex) stimulation. Neuropsychologia 72:87–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ferrari C, Nadal M, Schiavi S, Vecchi T, Cela-Conde C, Cattaneo Z (2017) The dorsomedial prefrontal cortex mediates the interaction between moral and aesthetic valuation: a TMS study on the Beauty-is-Good stereotype. SCAN 12(5):707–717PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Ferrari C, Schiavi S, Cattaneo Z (2018) TMS over the superior temporal sulcus affects expressivity evaluation of portraits. CABN 18(6):1188–1197PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Filmer HL, Dux PE, Mattingley JB (2014) Applications of transcranial direct current stimulation for understanding brain function. Trends Cogn Nurosci 37(12):742–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Freedberg D, Gallese V (2007) Motion, emotion and empathy in esthetic experience. Trends Cogn Sci 5:197–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Furnham A, Walker J (2001) The influence of personality traits, previous experience of art, and demographic variables on artistic preference. Pers Individ Differ 31:997–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gandiga PC, Hummel FC, Cohen LG (2006) Transcranial DC stimulation (tDCS): a tool for double-blind sham-controlled clinical studies in brain stimulation. Clin Neurophysiol 117(4):845–850PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Geuzaine C, Remacle JF (2009) Gmsh: a 3-D finite element mesh generator with built-in pre- and post-processing facilities. Int J Numer Methods Eng 79(11):1309–1331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Heinrichs RW, Cupchik GC (1985) Individual differences as predictors of preference in visual art. J Pers 53:502–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hekkert P, van Wieringen PCW (1996) Beauty in the eye of expert and nonexpert beholders: a study in the appraisal of art. Am J Psychol 109:389–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hox JJ (2010) Multilevel analysis. Techniques and applications, 2nd edn. Routledge, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ishizu T, Zeki S (2011) Toward a brain-based theory of beauty. PLoS ONE 6(7):e21852PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ishizu T, Zeki S (2013) The brain’s specialized systems for aesthetic and perceptual judgment. Eur J Neurosci 37(9):1413–1420PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ishizu T, Zeki S (2017) The experience of beauty derived from sorrow. Hum Brain Mapp 38(8):4185–4200PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Iyer MB, Mattu U, Grafman J, Lomarev M, Sato S, Wassermann EM (2005) Safety and cognitive effect of frontal DC brain polarization in healthy individuals. Neurology 64(5):872–875PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jacobs RH, Renken R, Cornelissen FW (2012) Neural correlates of visual aesthetics–beauty as the coalescence of stimulus and internal state. PLoS ONE 7(2):e31248PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jacobsen T, Schubotz RI, Höfel L, Cramon DYV (2006) Brain correlates of aesthetic judgment of beauty. Neuroimage 29(1):276–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jacobson L, Koslowsky M, Lavidor M (2012) tDCS polarity effects in motor and cognitive domains: a meta-analytical review. Exp Brain Res 216(1):1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Judd CM, Westfall J, Kenny DA (2012) Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: a new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. J Pers Soc Psychol 103:54–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Judd CM, Westfall J, Kenny DA (2017) Experiments with more than one random factor: designs, analytic models, and statistical power. Annu Rev Psychol 68:601–625PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Junghofer M, Winker C, Rehbein MA, Sabatinelli D (2017) Noninvasive stimulation of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex enhances pleasant scene processing. Cereb Cortex 27(6):3449–3456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kajimura S, Kochiyama T, Nakai R, Abe N, Nomura M (2016) Causal relationship between effective connectivity within the default mode network and mind-wandering regulation and facilitation. Neuroimage 133:21–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Karabanov AN, Saturnino GB, Thielscher A, Siebner HR (2019) Can transcranial electrical stimulation localize brain function? Front Psychol 10:213PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kawabata H, Zeki S (2004) Neural correlates of beauty. J Neurophysiol 91(4):1699–1705PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kirk U, Skov M, Christensen MS, Nygaard N (2009) Brain correlates of aesthetic expertise: a parametric fMRI study. Brain Cogn 69:306–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kirsch LP, Urgesi C, Cross ES (2016) Shaping and reshaping the aesthetic brain: emerging perspectives on the neurobiology of embodied aesthetics. Neurosci Biobehav R 62:56–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kühn S, Gallinat J (2012) The neural correlates of subjective pleasantness. Neuroimage 61:289–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kuznetsova A, Brockho PB, Christensen RHB (2012) lmerTest: tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package). Retrieved from http://www.cran.r-project.org/packagelmerTest/
  61. Lang PJ, Bradley MM, Cuthbert BN (2008) International affective picture system (IAPS): affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual. Technical Report A-8. University of Florida, Gainesville, FLGoogle Scholar
  62. Li LM, Violante IR, Leech R, Ross E, Hampshire A, Opitz A, Rothwell JC, Carmichael DW, Sharp DJ (2019) Brain state and polarity dependent modulation of brain networks by transcranial direct current stimulation. Hum Brain Mapp 40(3):904–915PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Luke SG (2017) Evaluating significance in linear mixed-effects models in R. Behav Res Methods 49:1494–1502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Manuel AL, David AW, Bikson M, Schnider A (2014) Frontal tDCS modulates orbitofrontal reality filtering. Neuroscience 265:21–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mühlenbeck CA, Liebal K, Pritsch C, Jacobsen T (2015) Gaze duration biases for colours in combination with dissonant and consonant sounds: a comparative eye-tracking study with orangutans. PLoS ONE 10(10):e0139894PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Nakamura K, Kawabata H (2015) Transcranial direct current stimulation over the medial prefrontal cortex and left primary motor cortex (MPFC-lPMC) affects subjective beauty but not ugliness. Front Hum Neurosci 114:11Google Scholar
  67. Neperud RW (1986) The relationship of art training and sex differences to aesthetic valuing. Vis Arts Res 12:11–19Google Scholar
  68. Nezlek JB (2001) Multilevel random coefficient analyses of event- and interval-contingent data in social and personality psychology research. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 27:771–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Nitsche MA, Cohen LG, Wassermann EM, Priori A, Lang N, Antal A, Paulus W, Hummel F, Boggio P, Fregni F, Pascual-Leone A (2008) Transcranial direct current stimulation: state of the art 2008. Brain Stimul 1(3):206–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Opitz A, Windhoff M, Heidemann RM, Turner R, Thielscher A (2011) How the brain tissue shapes the electric field induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neuroimage 58:849–859PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Opitz A, Falchier A, Yan C, Yeagle EM, Linn GS, Megevand P, Thielscher A, Deborah RA, Milham MP, Mehta AD, Schroeder CE (2016) Spatiotemporal structure of intracranial electric fields induced by transcranial electric stimulation in humans and nonhuman primates. Sci Rep 6:31236PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Padoa-Schioppa C, Cai X (2011) The orbitofrontal cortex and the computation of subjective value: consolidated concepts and new perspectives. Ann NY Acad Sci 1239:130–137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Pearce MT, Zaidel DW, Vartanian O, Skov M, Leder H, Chatterjee A, Nadal M (2016) Neuroaesthetics: the cognitive neuroscience of aesthetic experience. Perspect Psychol Sci 11(2):265–279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pegors TK, Kable JW, Chatterjee A, Epstein RA (2015) Common and unique representations in pFC for face and place attractiveness. J Cogn Neurosci 27:959–973PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Perera T, George MS, Grammer G, Janicak PG, Pascual-Leone A, Wirecki TS (2016) The clinical TMS society consensus review and treatment recommendations for TMS therapy for major depressive disorder. Brain Stimul 9(3):336–346PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Phan KL, Taylor SF, Welsh RC, Decker LR, Noll DC, Nichols TE, Britton J, Liberzon I (2003) Activation of the medial prefrontal cortex and extended amygdala by individual ratings of emotional arousal: a fMRI study. Biol Psychiatry 53(3):211–215PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Pulzella DJ (2000) Differences in reactions to paintings by male and female college students. Percept Mot Skills 91(1):251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Version 3.5.0. https://www.R-project.org/
  79. Renzi C, Ferrari C, Schiavi S, Pisoni A, Papagno C, Vecchi T, Antal A, Cattaneo Z (2015) The role of the occipital face area in holistic processing involved in face detection and discrimination: a tDCS study. Neuropsychology 29(3):409–416PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Russell MJ, Goodman TA, Visse JM, Beckett L, Saito N, Lyeth BG, Recanzone GH (2017) Sex and electrode configuration in transcranial electrical stimulation. Front Psychol 8:147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Salkind L, Salkind NJ (1997) Gender and age differences in preference for works of art. Stud Art Educ 38(4):246–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Seitz RJ, Nickel J, Azari NP (2006) Functional modularity of the medial prefrontal cortex: involvement in human empathy. Neuropsychology 20(6):743–751PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Silveira S, Fehse K, Vedder A, Elvers K, Hennig-Fast K (2015) Is it the picture or is it the frame? An fMRI study on the neurobiology of framing effects. Front Hum Neurosci 9:528PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Silvia PJ (2007) An introduction to multilevel modeling for research on the psychology of art and creativity. Empir Stud Arts 25:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Skov M, Nadal M (2018) Art is not special: an assault on the last lines of defense against the naturalization of the human mind. Rev Neurosci 29(6):699–702PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Snijders TAB, Bosker RJ (2012) Multilevel analysis. An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling, 2nd edn. SAGE Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  87. Thair H, Holloway AL, Newport R, Smith AD (2017) Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS): a beginner’s guide for design and implementation. Front Neurosci 11:641PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Thielscher A, Opitz A, Windhoff M (2011) Impact of the gyral geometry on the electric field induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neuroimage 54:234–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Thielscher A, Antunes A, Saturnino GB (2015) Field modeling for transcranial magnetic stimulation: a useful tool to understand the physiological effects of TMS? In: Annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society 2015. Milan, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  90. Tsukiura T, Cabeza R (2011) Remembering beauty: roles of orbitofrontal and hippocampal regions in successful memory encoding of attractive faces. Neuroimage 54(1):653–660PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Umemoto A, HajiHosseini A, Yates ME, Holroyd CB (2017) Reward-based contextual learning supported by anterior cingulate cortex. CABN 17(3):642–651PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Vaidya AR, Sefranek M, Fellows LK (2017) Ventromedial frontal lobe damage alters how specific attributes are weighed in subjective valuation. Cereb Cortex 28:3857–3867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Valero-Cabré A, Amengual JL, Stengel C, Pascual-Leone A, Coubard OA (2017) Transcranial magnetic stimulation in basic and clinical neuroscience: a comprehensive review of fundamental principles and novel insights. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 83:381–404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. van’t Wout M, Silverman H (2017) Modulating what is and what could have been: the effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on the evaluation of attained and unattained decision outcomes. CABN 17(6):1176–1185Google Scholar
  95. Vartanian O, Goel V (2004) Neuroanatomical correlates of aesthetic preference for paintings. NeuroReport 15(5):893–897PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Vartanian O, Navarrete G, Chatterjee A, Fich LB, Leder H, Modroño C, Rostrup N, Skov M, Corradi G, Nadal M (2019) Preference for curvilinear contour in interior architectural spaces: evidence from experts and nonexperts. Psychol Aesthet Creat 13(1):110–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Vessel EA, Starr GG, Rubin N (2012) The brain on art: intense aesthetic experience activates the default mode network. Front Hum Neurosci 6:66PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Vessel EA, Starr GG, Rubin N (2013) Art reaches within: aesthetic experience, the self and the default mode network. Front Neurosci 7:258PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Vogt S, Magnussen S (2007) Expertise in pictorial perception: eye-movement patterns and visual memory in artists and laymen. Perception 36(1):91–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wagner V, Menninghaus W, Hanich J, Jacobsen T (2014) Art schema effects on affective experience: the case of disgusting images. Psychol Aesthet Creat 8:120–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Whitfield-Gabrieli S, Ford JM (2012) Default mode network activity and connectivity in psychopathology. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 8:49–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Wilson TW, McDermott TJ, Mills MS, Coolidge NM, Heinrichs-Graham E (2018) tDCS modulates visual gamma oscillations and basal alpha activity in occipital cortices: evidence from MEG. Cereb Cortex 28(5):1597–1609PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Yeh YC, Lin CW, Hsu WC, Kuo WJ, Chan YC (2015) Associated and dissociated neural substrates of aesthetic judgment and aesthetic emotion during the appreciation of everyday designed products. Neuropsychologia 73:151–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Zhang W, Lai S, He X, Zhao X, Lai S (2016) Neural correlates for aesthetic appraisal of pictograph and its referent: an fMRI study. Behav Brain Res 305:229–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Zilverstand A, Parvaz MA, Goldstein RZ (2017) Neuroimaging cognitive reappraisal in clinical populations to define neural targets for enhancing emotion regulation. A systematic review. Neuroimage 151:105–116PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zaira Cattaneo
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Chiara Ferrari
    • 1
  • Susanna Schiavi
    • 1
  • Ivan Alekseichuk
    • 3
  • Andrea Antal
    • 3
    • 6
  • Marcos Nadal
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Milano-BicoccaMilanItaly
  2. 2.Brain Connectivity CenterIRCCS Mondino FoundationPaviaItaly
  3. 3.Department of Clinical NeurophysiologyGeorg-August UniversityGoettingenGermany
  4. 4.Human Evolution and Cognition Group (EvoCog)University of the Balearic IslandsPalma de MallorcaSpain
  5. 5.Associated Unit to CSICIFISCPalma de MallorcaSpain
  6. 6.Medizinische Fakultät, Institut für Medizinische PsychologieOtto-von-Guericke-Universität MagdeburgMagdeburgGermany

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options