University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Dedifferentiation of emotion regulation strategies in the aging brain: an MVPA investigation

(USC Thesis Other)

Dedifferentiation of emotion regulation strategies in the aging brain: an MVPA investigation

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 1

Dedifferentiation of Emotion Regulation Strategies in the Aging Brain: An MVPA Investigation
Bruna S. Martins
University of Southern California

Author Note
Bruna S. Martins, Department of Psychology, University of Southern California.
This research was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging
(R01AG025340) and a Graduate Research Fellowship from the National Science
Foundation (DGE-0937362).

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bruna Martins,
Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, 3715 McClintock Avenue, Los
Angeles, CA, 90089-0191.
Email: bruna.martins@usc.edu
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 2

Table of Contents

Abstract..........................................................................................................................................3
Introduction....................................................................................................................................4
Method .........................................................................................................................................13
Results..........................................................................................................................................22
Discussion....................................................................................................................................26
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................35
References....................................................................................................................................38
Tables and Figures .......................................................................................................................52

DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 3

Abstract

Aging is marked by a decline in the specificity of activation in brain areas that, in younger
adults, serve specialized discrete cognitive functions. In this study, we examined whether
emotion regulation strategies also become differentiated in the aging brain. In younger adults,
stimulus-focused emotion regulation has been shown to activate lateral regions of cortex, while
self-referential processes recruit a series of medial brain structures (Ochsner et al., 2004). Based
on these differences in younger adults, we investigated the neural differentiation of reappraisal
(stimulus-focused) and distraction (self-focused) emotion regulation strategies for younger and
older adults using Multi-Voxel Pattern Analyses (MVPA). Both age groups showed different
patterns of activity for the two emotion regulation strategies in posterior regions, but only
younger adults showed significant discrimination in frontal regions. MVPA differentiated the
two strategies more accurately for younger adults than older adults across the majority of
cortex, but the largest age-related differences were seen in the posterior medial cortex (PMC-
precuneus and pCC) and lateral occipital/superior parietal cortex. Univariate analyses revealed
equal recruitment of the PMC across strategies for older adults, but greater activity during
distraction than reappraisal for younger adults. The PMC plays a key role in the default mode
network, and its involvement during tasks increases with age. Our findings suggest that these
age differences in the PMC extend to the differentiation of processing across different strategy
contexts during emotion regulation for older adults.

Keywords: emotion regulation, dedifferentiation, MVPA, default mode network, aging

DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 4

Dedifferentiation of Emotion Regulation Strategies in the Aging Brain: An MVPA Investigation

During cognitive processing, older adults tend to recruit regions not typically associated
with processing in younger samples, and rely more on common resources rather than
specialized structures, suggesting a dedifferentiation of the brain with aging (Li &
Lindenberger, 1999; Raz et al., 2005). Dedifferentiation in the aging brain can reflect
impairments in task performance, or reflect maintenance of executive functioning through age-
related compensatory changes in neural communication (Goh, 2011). Unlike many systems that
decline with aging, emotion regulation is thought to improve across the lifespan (Gross &
Levenson, 1997), and use of emotion regulation strategies is thought to become less cognitively
costly in later life (Scheibe & Blanchard-Fields, 2009). However, the age-related neural changes
responsible for this improvement in emotion regulation remain unknown. Two of the most
efficacious emotion regulation strategies—cognitive reappraisal and distraction— are found to
recruit common and unique brain regions in younger adults (Kanske, Heissler, Schönfelder,
Bongers, & Wessa, 2010; McRae et al., 2010), but the differentiation of these emotion
regulation strategies has not been investigated in older adults. In this study, we were interested
in exploring the differentiation of emotion regulation across age. Below, we review the
dedifferentiation of brain systems in later life, summarize previous neuroimaging studies of
reappraisal and distraction, and discuss the design of the current study, investigating the
differentiation of self-focused distraction, and stimulus-focused reappraisal across age.
Dedifferentiation of Neural Processing in Later Life
Dedifferentiation is seen with aging across a wide range of cognitive tasks. For instance,
word encoding leads to left-lateralized frontal activations for younger adults, while older adults
activate frontal regions bilaterally (Logan, Sanders, Snyder, Morris, & Buckner, 2002), and
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 5

decreased differentiation is found between left-finger and right-finger tapping in motor
processing regions for older adults (Carp, Park, Hebrank, Park, & Polk, 2011). Evidence for
dedifferentiation of the aging brain is also reported in visual processing tasks. In younger adults,
visual processing of faces, objects, houses, and scenes are distinctly processed in separate brain
regions within the fusiform face area (FFA), lateral occipital cortex, lingual gyrus, and
parahippocampal place area (PPA), respectively. Older adults, however, show decreased
specificity in visual representations, such that stimuli that selectively activate one discrete
region in younger adults tend to unselectively activate multiple regions in older people (Grady
et al., 1992; Park et al., 2004; Voss et al., 2008). In addition, older adults also show sustained
activation of the FFA for processing of similar faces, suggesting an inability to attenuate FFA
activation following repeated exposure, and decreased sensitivity in feature processing (Goh,
Suzuki, & Park, 2010). Age-related declines in differentiation of specialized visual processing
are also encountered in goal-related visual tasks. In one study, older adults were presented with
images of places and neutral faces, and in separate conditions were instructed to either attend to
locations and ignore faces or vice versa. For both ignore conditions, older adults showed similar
sustained activation in specialized processing regions of the brain —within the PPA and FFA—
activity that was selectively dampened for younger adults. (Gazzaley, Cooney, Rissman, &
D’Esposito, 2005). Taken together, both automatic and strategic processing tasks suggest a
dedifferentiation of brain systems with aging, and decreased discriminability between processes
known to be distinct in younger adults. These previous studies have investigated differences in
dedifferentiation in systems governing functions thought to decline with the aging process,
visual processing and attention/cognitive control (Park, 2000). However, the degree to which
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 6

emotion regulation strategies are differentiated in the brain across the lifespan remains
unknown.
Emotion Regulation Changes Across the Lifespan
Older adults report placing greater weight on emotion regulation goals (Isaacowitz,
Toner, Goren, & Wilson, 2008; Riediger, Schmiedek, Wagner, & Lindenberger, 2009), and
show a natural predisposition for minimizing the negative and maximizing the positive, in terms
of the experiences they select, information they attend to, and memories they recall (Charles,
Mather, & Carstensen, 2003; Kennedy, Mather, & Carstensen, 2004; Mather & Carstensen,
2003). Exposure to positive stimuli has been shown to significantly decrease cardiovascular
responses following negative mood induction (Fredrickson, Mancuso, Branigan, & Tugade,
2000), and considered together, these findings suggest that this age-related positivity effect may
lead to improved emotion regulation abilities in later life (Gross & Levenson, 1997; Lawton,
Kleban, Rajagopal, & Dean, 2001). There is some empirical support for emotion regulation
becoming less resource demanding, and more automatic in older age (Scheibe & Blanchard-
Fields, 2009). Additionally, avoidance of negative information may play a larger role in
emotion regulation for older than younger people (Erskine, Kvavilashvili, Conway, & Myers,
2007). However, these age-related changes in emotion regulation processing have only begun to
be investigated with fMRI methods.
Differentiating Distraction and Reappraisal in the Brain
Redirection of attentional focus away from a negative situation (distraction), and top-
down modification of negative associated cognitions (reappraisal) are found to be two of the
most effective emotion regulation strategies for recovering from negative affective states
(Augustine & Hemenover, 2009; Beck, 1976). Cognitive reappraisal is a strategy that promotes
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 7

reinterpretation of the emotional meaning of a situation, in order to lessen the downstream
emotional impact of the stressor (Gross, 1998). For example, one could increase their attentional
engagement with a negative stimulus, and re-conceptualize the situation as having a positive
outcome, or redirect focus to positive aspects of the emotional situation (Folkman &
Moskowitz, 2000). Reappraisal leads to improvements in self-reported affect (Gross, 1998), and
decreased psychophysiological responses to negative emotional stimuli (Butler, Wilhelm, &
Gross, 2006; Jackson, Malmstadt, Larson, & Davidson, 2000). Neuroimaging studies have
shown reappraisal to promote the recruitment of cognitive control regions in the prefrontal
cortex (PFC), and decrease activation in limbic structures that govern emotional reactivity such
as the amygdala (Lévesque et al., 2003; Ochsner et al., 2004; Ochsner & Gross, 2005, Phan et
al., 2005). Furthermore, functional connectivity analyses show that the strength of connectivity
between the PFC and amygdala during reappraisal is inversely related to self-reported negative
affect (Banks, Eddy, Angstadt, Nathan, & Phan, 2007). This suggests that greater activity in the
PFC down-regulates activity in the amygdala, which produces improvements in emotional
experience.
Age differences in reappraisal have been studied in the brain, but with mixed results.
Urry et al. (2006) evaluated reappraisal in an fMRI paradigm with older adults, and found that
older adults failed to activate regions of the dorsolateral and dorsomedial PFC, previously found
to be involved in emotion regulation for younger adults. They only found reappraisal-related
PFC activity in one region of the supplementary motor area, suggesting a decreased role of the
prefrontal cortex in reappraisal mechanisms in later life. Likewise, Opitz and colleagues (2010)
found greater activation in dorsomedial and ventrolateral PFC during reappraisal for younger
than older adults. Taken together, these two studies suggest a decreased recruitment of
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 8

prefrontal regions in reappraisal processing in older populations. In contrast, other studies have
found that during reappraisal, older and younger adults similarly activated regions in middle,
superior, and inferior frontal cortex (van Reekum et al., 2007; Winecoff, LaBar, Madden,
Cabeza, & Huettel, 2009). However, Winecoff et al. (2009) did find decreased activation for
older adults in the left inferior frontal gyrus in comparison to their younger sample, indicating
some degree of age-related changes in reappraisal processing. One of the objectives in
conducting the current study was to clarify the role of prefrontal recruitment in reappraisal in
later life.
Distraction strategies, in contrast, emphasize attentional detachment from emotional
stressors in favor of engaging with alternatives. For instance, one could distract from an
emotional stressor by thinking about something pleasant unrelated to the stressor (pleasure-
focused distraction), or by engaging in an alternate task that is attention demanding and effortful
(resource-allocation distraction; Parkinson & Totterdale, 1999). The tendency to direct attention
away from negative affective experience is associated with positive outcomes, including fewer
health problems and lower rates of psychopathology (Coifman, Bonanno, Ray, & Gross, 2007).
Relocation of attention to a secondary task has been shown to decrease self-reported negative
affect following negative mood induction (Erber & Tesser, 1992). Furthermore, both self-
reported pain and activation of pain centers in the brain are attenuated during a cold-pressor task
when subjects are distracted by a secondary cognitive puzzle (Bantick, 2002; Frankenstein,
Richter, McIntyre, & Remy, 2001; Hodes, Rowland, Lightfoot, & Cleeland, 1990; Petrovic,
Petersson, Ghatan, Stone-Elander, & Ingvar, 2000).
Although resource-allocation distraction is associated with hedonic improvements, in the
majority of stressful situations encountered in daily life, the environment fails to provide a
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 9

resource-demanding external task to aid in the emotion regulation process. In contrast, self-
generated emotion regulation efforts, such as recalling a pleasant memory unrelated to the
stressor, are always accessible (Parrott, 1993). The neural mechanisms of pleasure-focused
distraction have not yet been investigated, but prior research has distinguished between self-
referential and stimulus-focused emotion regulation. Ochsner and colleagues (2004) conducted
an emotion regulation task that asked subjects to either consider an emotional situation in a
personally-relevant or personally-irrelevant manner (self-focused), or to focus on how the
situation would improve or worsen for the person depicted in the image (stimulus-focused). It
was found that self-focused processing led to increased activity in medial structures, while
stimulus-focused processing led to greater activations in the lateral prefrontal cortex (Ochsner et
al., 2004). Another imaging study asked participants to take the perspective of a distanced,
disconnected observer during interaction with aversive social stimuli, and found recruitment of
medial regions, including the anterior cingulate, medial prefrontal cortex, precuneus, and
posterior cingulate cortex (Koenigsberg et al., 2010). Self-referential processing (Buckner &
Carroll, 2007; Johnson et al., 2006; Hassabis, Kumaran, & Maguire, 2007) and reflecting on
others’ perspectives (Mitchell et al., 2006) have been shown to selectively activate these medial
regions. This suggests that these medial-lateral differences reflect differences in how one
reflects and relates situations to the self during the emotion regulation process.
FMRI investigations contrasting resource-allocation distraction and reappraisal in
emotion regulation contexts have also reported lateral and medial differences in activation
across strategy conditions, but findings are mixed. One study found overlapping activity in both
lateral and medial frontal cortex for both distraction and reappraisal (McRae et al., 2010), with
greater activation in medial regions during reappraisal than distraction. In contrast, Kanske and
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 10

colleagues (2010) reported greater activity in medial frontal regions for distraction than for
reappraisal. Differences between reappraisal and distraction strategies in previous studies likely
reflect the cognitive demands of the particular distraction and reappraisal tasks utilized. In these
studies, distraction tasks included a task of confrontation naming, and encoding of a 6-letter
string, both which direct attention away from the emotional stimuli, but carry different cognitive
demands (Kanske, Heissler, Schönfelder, Bongers, & Wessa, 2010; McRae et al., 2010). One
previous study considered cognitive distraction tasks with low and high working memory load
during pain processing, and found greater activation in medial regions during a simple
distraction task (Kalisch et al., 2005). Therefore, it is likely that the medial activations found by
McRae and colleagues (2010) reflect lower task demands in the reappraisal condition, and
medial activations reported in the Kanske et al. (2010) paper likely reflect lower task demands
in the distraction condition.
The Current Study
The current study attempts to investigate the differentiation of emotion regulation
strategies and uncover age-related differences in differentiation of reappraisal and distraction.
Given the contrast between medial brain recruitment in simple, self-referential tasks, and lateral
activations in externally-focused and challenging tasks, in this study, we focused on emotion
regulation strategies that would lead to theoretical differentiation of brain activation.
Furthermore, we also utilized a pleasure-focused distraction task rather than a cognitive-load
distraction task in order to minimize brain activation differences that might reflect age
differences in cognitive control, rather than age-related differences in emotion regulation
processing. Effortful cognitive functions such as working memory decline with aging (Park et
al, 2000), but autobiographical memory for self-relevant emotional events seem to be relatively
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 11

preserved across the lifespan. Older adults seem to naturally utilize positive memories in
emotion regulation, as more than 99% of older adult caregivers report recalling positive events
during stressful situations (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000). Older adults also recall similar
amounts of gist information (Holland & Rabbitt, 1990), and report more personal thoughts and
feelings than concrete details during episodic recall than younger people (Hashtroudi, Johnson,
& Chrosniak, 1990). This indicates preserved or greater facility with pleasure-focused
distraction in later life. In light of these findings, we used a distraction task in which subjects
regulated their emotions by thinking of a self-relevant pleasant memory unrelated to the
presented stimulus, and a reappraisal task that increased stimulus elaboration, asking subjects to
focus on how the stimulus may not be as bad as it seems.
In order to investigate neural pattern differences between these emotion regulation
strategies, we utilized a technique known as Multi-Voxel Pattern Analysis (MVPA), which is
sensitive to distributed pattern differences between conditions across voxels (Norman, Polyn,
Detre, & Haxby, 2006; Pereira, Mitchell, & Botvinick, 2009). We chose to use MVPA methods
to maximize power of finding regions that discriminate between reappraisal and distraction in
each subject, but that could show different patterns of activation across subjects. MVPA has the
ability to reveal regions that discriminate between conditions that are undetected in univariate
analyses, which only consider activation within one voxel at a time (Mur, Bandettini, &
Kriegeskorte, 2009). For instance, previous univariate analyses have shown that while
univariate methods fail to find a difference in brain activation between /ra/ and /la/ phonemes
due to similar levels of activation in both conditions, MVPA is able to distinguish unique
patterns across conditions (Raizada et al., 2010). While MVPA analyses have greater power to
uncover additional regions differentially involved across task conditions, univariate analyses
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 12

also provide useful information regarding more global involvement of regions across task
contexts (Jimura & Poldrack, 2012). Though MVPA can detect differences between conditions,
its limitation is not being able to pinpoint the nature of the differentiated activation patterns. In
contrast, univariate analyses allow for direct comparison of activation from each condition, at
the cost of being less sensitive to individual differences. In this study, we chose to integrate
MVPA with traditional univariate methods, to investigate the dedifferentiation of emotion
regulation strategies with age. MVPA analyses provided sensitivity to locate subtle individual
differences in patterns of activation between conditions, and follow-up univariate analyses
provided quantification of pattern differences within each condition. In this way, we maximized
power to assess individual differences, as well as to make inferences about activation patterns.
As a final note, visual attentional deployment has been shown to contribute to variance
in brain activation during emotion regulation (van Reekum et al., 2007). In order to control for
the possibility that dedifferentiation findings may be entirely explained by gaze position, we
collected eye gaze position as an additional measure in this experiment.
The study tested three hypotheses regarding differentiation of emotion regulation across
age groups: (1). Due to the dedifferentiation of visual and attentional processing in aging, we
hypothesized that MVPA analyses would reveal a higher degree of discriminability between
reappraisal and distraction for younger adults than older adults (2). Given the theoretical
expectation that self-focused distraction would preferentially activate medial structures, and that
stimulus-focused reappraisal would preferentially activate lateral brain regions, we
hypothesized that univariate analyses would reveal this differentiation for both age groups (3).
Our last aim was exploratory, based on the mixed age-related findings in previous univariate
studies, and the lack of investigations of distraction in older adults. Our goal was to clarify
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 13

whether prefrontal regions would discriminate across the two emotion regulation strategies, and
whether this difference would be more pronounced for younger participants.
Method
Participants

Twelve students from the University of Southern California (age: M= 21.9 years, SD=
3.2, age range = 18- 30 years, 6 men and 6 women) and fourteen older adults recruited from the
community through the USC Healthy Minds volunteer database (age: M= 69.0 years, SD= 4.76,
age range = 62 -78 years, 6 men and 8 women) participated in the study. Participants all
provided written informed consent approved by the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board and were paid for their participation. Prospective participants were
screened and excluded for any medical, neurological, psychiatric illness, any metallic implants
or conditions that may preclude them from being scanned in an MRI. Older adults were
screened for cognitive impairment by a minimum score of 30 on the Telephone Interview for
Cognitive Status (TICS; Brandt, Spencer & Folstein, 1988). Two older adult participants were
excluded from all analyses due to inability to learn the strategy instructions, reflected by post-
questionnaire responses. Demographics for older sample included in the analyses were
comparable to the original collected sample (age: M = 69.5 years, SD= 4.81, age range = 62 -78
years, 6 men and 6 women).
Emotion regulation task training
Prior to scanning, subjects practiced employing the two emotion regulation strategies in
a self-paced training task. Participants were told to select a personally relevant and pleasant
distraction image, which could easily be imagined throughout the scanner task. A few
distraction examples included imagining being on vacation relaxing on a sandy beach, admiring
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 14

art in a museum during a trip abroad, and remembering a pleasant conversation with a close
friend. Participants were instructed to think and elaborate on this distraction image when cued
to ‘distract’ during the task. Instructions for the distract condition were:

When you see the instruction to DISTRACT, think of a particular person, place, or thing
that you like and makes you happy. For example, you could think of a pleasant vacation,
the tune to your favorite song, a person you enjoy talking to- it's up to you. Just be sure
to pick one image and stick with it throughout the session.

Participants were also introduced to the ‘reappraise’ condition in the practice task. Instructions
for the reappraise condition were:

When you see the instruction to REAPPRAISE, we want you to think of something to
tell yourself that helps you to feel less negative about the picture. You could focus on
how things will work out in the end, or how the situation is not as bad as it first seemed.

To ensure that participants understood the directions, they were shown five reappraisal and five
distraction practice trials, and told the experimenter aloud how they were either distracting or
reappraising to each practice image. Corrective feedback was given if subjects conflated the
emotion regulation strategies. Participants were told not to communicate their emotion
regulation process aloud during the fMRI scan, and following the practice, they were to silently
enact each strategy. Prior to the scan tasks, participants also completed the Positive Affect
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 15

Negative Affect Scales (PANAS, Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988), to provide a baseline
measure of affective state.
Scanner Session
Anatomical scans were collected at the beginning of the scan session. Eye tracking was
collected throughout the session, and participants performed an initial 9-point calibration during
the collection of the structural scans. After anatomical scanning was complete, subjects
completed a resting state scan. The resting fMRI scan lasted 6 minutes. Participants were shown
a fixation cross and were told to look at where the lines intersected, think of nothing in
particular. Following the resting state scan, subjects performed the Emotion Regulation task,
described below at illustrated in Figure 1. Eye tracking was recalibrated before the start of each
run.
Emotion Regulation Task
Each subject completed 4 task runs, each lasting 6.8 minutes. Each functional run
consisted of a block of eight ‘distract’ and eight ‘reappraise’ trials, with block order
counterbalanced across runs. Before each block, subjects were shown a reminder of the emotion
regulation strategy instructions for that strategy (‘reappraise’ or ‘distract’). Sixty-four negative
images (valence: M= 2.83, SD= 0.623, arousal: M=5.39, SD=0.856), from the International
Affective Picture Systems (IAPS; Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 1999) were presented to subjects
in counterbalanced order using E-prime software (Psychology Software Tools). Each negative
image was presented on either the left or right side of the screen, in counterbalanced order. A
cue that indicated whether a subject was to ‘distract’ or ‘reappraise’ was shown next to the
image on each trial. Following each stimulus, subjects rated the post-regulation intensity of the
image on a four-point scale (ranging either from very mild to very intense, or very intense to
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 16

very mild, counterbalanced across subjects). Following the rating, a fixation cross was
displayed during the 10-s interval between trials (see Figure 1).
Post-scan Incidental Memory Test and Questionnaires
Following the scan, post-task mood ratings were collected with the PANAS. Participants
were then asked to verbally recall as many images from the scan session as they could
remember within a ten-minute incidental memory task, and their responses were transcribed.
Two separate raters coded descriptions of recalled items as corresponding to a specific image
seen during the task, or as an intrusion never encountered in the experiment. In the event of tied
values, the author was asked to separately rate the transcriptions, without knowledge of the
items coded by the other assistants. This resulted in a 2/3 majority rating for those items, and a
resolution of all ties.
At the end of the session, subjects completed a post-task questionnaire, which asked
participants to describe what they did during each regulation strategy, as a manipulation check
of strategy encoding. Participants also completed the Wechsler Test of Adult Reading
(WTAR™) test and several questionnaires including a demographic information form, the Digit
Span forwards and Digit Span Backwards subtests from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale
(WAIS-III®, 1997), the Letter-Number sequencing subtest of the Wechsler Memory Scale—
Third Edition (WMS-III®), the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D;
Radloff, 1977) scale, and the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; Gross & John, 2003).
See Table 1 for demographic summaries of these measures.
Functional MRI Acquisition and Preprocessing
Imaging was conducted with a 3-T Siemens MAGNETOM Trio scanner with a 12-
channel matrix head coil at the University of Southern California Dana and David Dornsife
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 17

Neuroimaging Center. T2-weighted images, and T1–weighted structural scans were collected.
The imaging parameters for functional scans were repetition time = 2000 msec, echo time = 25
msec, slice thickness = 3 mm, interslice gap = 0 mm, flip angle = 90°, and field of view = 192
mm × 192 mm. The experimental task was projected onto a rear projection screen at the end of
the scanner bore which participants viewed through a mirror mounted on the head coil. FMRI
data preprocessing was performed using the FSL software package (www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/fsl)
and included motion correction with MCFLIRT, high-pass temporal filtering equivalent to 100
sec, slice-timing correction using Fourier-space time-series phase-shifting, and skull stripping of
structural images with BET. Registration was performed with FLIRT; each functional image
was registered to both the participant’s high-resolution brain-extracted structural image and the
standard Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) 2-mm brain.
MVPA Analyses
MVPA Preprocessing. No spatial smoothing was applied to the functional images for
the MVPA analyses, to allow downstream classifications to be based on the distributed
activation pattern within each sphere, rather than the mean activity of the sphere due to spatial
averaging. Individual functional runs were independently modeled at the first level. Each trial
for each participant was coded by a boxcar function lasting the 10-second stimulus duration and
a nuisance regressor for the 4-second image rating epoch following each trial. Both regressors
were convolved with a double-gamma hemodynamic response function and were high-pass
temporal filtered. General linear modeling was conducted using FSL’s FEAT (FSL;
www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/fsl). z (Gaussianized T/F) statistic images were thresholded at the whole-
brain level using clusters determined by z > 2.3 and a (corrected) cluster significance threshold
of p = 0.05 (Worsley, 2001). Time-series statistical analysis was carried out using FILM with
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 18

local autocorrelation correction (Woolrich, Ripley, Brady, & Smith, 2001). Parameter estimate
files for all runs were temporally concatenated, registered to the first volume of the first run, and
z-scored by run.
MVPA Searchlight Analyses. All MVPA analyses were performed using the PyMVPA
software package, using a linear support vector machine from LibSVM
(http://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~cjlin/libsvm/). Searchlight analyses were performed for each
participant independently (Kriegeskorte, Goebel, & Bandettini, 2006). Strategy condition labels
(‘Reappraise’, ‘Distract’) for each trial of the task were provided as inputs to the classifier.
Spheres with a radius of four voxels, centered on each voxel in the brain were utilized in the
classification procedure. A leave-one-out cross validation procedure was conducted for each
sphere, in which the classifier was trained on the brain data and labels from three task runs with
the linear support vector algorithm, and then tested on the left out run in each fold of the cross-
validation. The accuracy of each fold was determined by dividing the number of correct
classifier trial strategy condition guesses by the number of test trials. The accuracies for each
fold were averaged to provide a metric of overall classifier accuracy (performance) at each
voxel location. Each voxel in the map represents the overall classification accuracy for the
sphere centered at that location.
Each participant’s map was then registered into the Montreal Neurological Institute
(MNI) standard space in order to perform group comparisons. In order to test for differences
between accuracy maps representing greater-than-chance performance, chance level
performance (0.5) was subtracted from each participant’s accuracy map. Non-parametric tests
were utilized due to the non-normal distribution of prediction accuracy, using FSL’s Randomise
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 19

tool. Monte Carlo permutations provided an estimated distribution with which to compute a
significance threshold (Nichols & Holmes, 2002).
To locate areas in the searchlight maps within each age group that consistently predicted
strategy condition above chance, non-parametric one-tailed t-tests were conducted in
comparison to chance level performance (0.5). For reported one-sample t-tests for separate age
groups (n=12), the null distribution of the cluster-size statistic was constructed from 4096
permutations, due to redundancies in the shuffles. To test for differences between searchlight
maps across age groups, two-sample non-parametric t-tests were run on the searchlight maps,
and the null distribution of the cluster-size statistic was constructed from 10,000 random
permutations. This procedure fully corrects for multiple comparisons across space (i.e.,
controlling the family-wise error – the chance of one or more false positives), resulting in a
margin-of-error below 10% of the nominal alpha. Alpha levels are reported separately for each
t-test performed.
MVPA- Top 25% Voxels Overlap Analysis. In order to test for the consistency of
regional predictiveness across participants within each age group, a frequency map was
calculated for each voxel of the brain. The value within each voxel of the map represents the
number of participants for whom that voxel was among the 25% most predictive of strategy
condition above chance. Maps were generated by thresholding searchlight maps by chance
performance (prediction accuracy > 0.5). Each participant’s map was spatially smoothed with a
Gaussian kernel of full-width half-maximum (FWHM) of 6 mm. The top 25% most predictive
remaining voxels were selected for each subject, and then binarized into a mask. For each age
group, individual participant binary maps were summed, such that the value in each output
voxel represented the number of participants for whom that voxel was among the 25% most
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 20

predictive of ER strategy condition (see Figure 3). Mean classifier accuracies from the top 25%
predictive voxels above chance were extracted for each participant using FSL’s Fslmaths tool
(see Figure 4), mean classifier accuracy for each age group was calculated (see Figure 5), and a
one-tailed two-sample t-test was conducted to test for significant age differences.
GLM Analyses
General linear modeling was conducted using FSL’s FEAT (FSL;
www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/fsl). Spatial smoothing was performed with a Gaussian kernel of FWHM 6
mm. Individual functional runs were independently modeled by task regressors representing
reappraisal trials, distraction trials, and a nuisance regressor modeling the 4s post-stimulus
rating period. Regressors were convolved with a double-gamma hemodynamic response
function and high-pass temporal filtered. A second-level analysis was then performed with a
fixed-effect model, in which the four functional runs were averaged within individual
participants. Age differences were analyzed by performing two-sample t-tests on each contrast
of interest using a mixed-effect model. Contrasts included Reappraisal> Baseline, Distraction>
Baseline, Reappraisal> Distraction, and Distraction>Reappraisal. Due to symmetry of the 2x2
design, Reappraisal>Distraction and Distraction>Reappraisal maps were mirrored for
Older>Younger and Younger>Older contrasts, thus representing an interaction of Condition x
Age. Follow-up percent signal change extractions using FSL’s Featquery tool were conducted
in order to clarify the nature of the interaction. Within-age group effects were calculated with
one-sample t-tests for the same contrasts above. We report z (Gaussianized T/F) statistic images
that were thresholded at the whole-brain level using clusters determined by z > 2.3 and a
(corrected) cluster significance threshold of p = 0.05.

DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 21

Eyetracking Analyses
Eyetracking Data Acquisition and Preprocessing. Images were presented at a
resolution of 1024x768 pixels, and eye-tracking data was collected using a monocular video-
based ASL 504 LRO Eye Tracker and Eye-Trac 6000 Eyetracking System (ASL, Bedford, MA)
sampled at 60 Hz. The right eye was tracked for each participant. Eyetracking data was
collected for all but one younger adult participant due to technical difficulties. Three additional
younger adult participants lacked sufficient eyetracking data to perform preprocessing, so we
only report eyetracking analyses for eight younger adults, and twelve older adults. The main
reasons for the insufficient eyetracking data were absolute loss of pupil track due and within-
scan loss of calibration. Data were blink-corrected by interpolation based on five samples prior
to and following each blink, using ILAB analysis software (ILAB; Gitelman, 2002). Eye
tracking data was resampled from 60 to 33 Hz. The absolute distance from each eyetracking
gaze point to the center of the image for the trial was calculated to place the data in a
meaningful spatial reference frame. The absolute value of the distance from the center point was
then calculated to provide a metric of relative distance from the image center for each gaze
point. Gaze points were labeled by trial number and strategy condition for each trial.
Eye-tracking MVPA classification analyses. The X and Y absolute distance from the
image center, trial numbers, and strategy conditions for each eyetracking gaze point served as
the input to a leave-one-out cross-validation approach implemented in PyMVPA, using a linear
support vector machine algorithm. The classifier was trained on three runs, and tested on one
run in each fold of a leave-one-out cross-validation procedure. The average eyetracking
accuracy in predicting strategy condition was calculated across four folds of the leave-one-out
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 22

cross-validation analysis for each participant. One-sample t-tests were conducted for each age
group separately, and collapsing across age to estimate whether eyetracking accuracy
significantly predicted strategy condition above chance (0.5). In order to test for differences
between brain and eye gaze predictions accuracies, one-sample paired-t-tests were conducted,
contrasting MVPA prediction accuracy from 25% top predictive brain voxels and eye gaze
MVPA prediction accuracies for all participants. One-sample t-tests were also conducted
between 25% top predictive voxels and eye gaze predictions for each age group separately.
Results

Post-stimulus Image Intensity Ratings
Average post-stimulus image intensity ratings showed no significant interaction in a 2x2
mixed ANOVA with between factor of age (younger, older adults), and within factor of strategy
condition (‘distract’, ‘reappraise’), and dependent variable of average rating within each
strategy condition, F(1,22)=0.00, p=.992. There were also no significant main effects of age,
F(1,22)=0.00, p=.992 or strategy condition, F(1,22)=0.339, p=.567. Means and standard
deviations for post-stimulus image intensity ratings are reported in Table 2.
Incidental Free-Recall Task
Two research assistants separately coded the post-scan free recall task, matching
transcript descriptions of images to pictures seen during the task, or as false-memory intrusions.
Overall inter-rater reliability was high and demonstrated a significant two-way average
measures interclass correlation, ICC(2,2)= 0.967, p<0.001. A 2x2 mixed ANOVA was
conducted with the within-subjects factor of strategy type (‘reappraise’, ‘distract’), between-
subjects factor of age (younger adults, older adults), and dependent variable of number of
images correctly recalled. The two-factor analysis of variance showed a significant main effect
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 23

of strategy type, as more items from the ‘reappraise’ condition (M=11.21, SD=3.50) were
recalled than items seen in the ‘distract’ condition (M= 7.42, SD= 3.12), F(1,22)= 24.0, p<
0.001. No significant main effect of age group, F(1,22)=1.34, p=0.259, nor an interaction
between age group and strategy type was found to be significant, F(1,22) = 0.003, p=.958 (see
Figure 2).
MVPA Discrimination Between Reappraisal and Distraction
Non-parametric one-sample t-tests conducted on the MVPA searchlight results showed
that older adult searchlights were most predictive of strategy condition above chance in regions
including the precuneus, posterior cingulate (PCC), lateral occipital cortex/superior parietal
lobe, left middle frontal gyrus (MFG), and temporal cortex, FWE-corrected p<0.05 (see Table
3). Younger adults showed the most predictive voxels in widespread regions including frontal
activations in the anterior cingulate (ACC), frontal pole, inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), bilateral
MFG, superior frontal gyrus (SFG), temporal cortex, and posterior regions of the precuneus,
PCC, and lateral occipital cortex/superior parietal lobe, FWE-corrected, p<0.0005 (See Table
4). To provide anatomical labels of the extent of activation, we report the regions that overlap
with the 50% probability thresholded Harvard-Oxford Structural Atlas, a probabilistic atlas that
defines regions based on standard anatomical boundaries (Kennedy et al., 1998; Makris et al.,
1999). Nonparametric two-sample t-tests conducted on the MVPA searchlight results revealed
the majority of the cerebral cortex as significantly more predictive of strategy for younger than
older adults at the family-wise error (FWE) corrected value of p<0.005 (see Table 5). Given the
broad nature of older adults’ dedifferentation, we also employed a more stringent FWE-
corrected threshold of p<0.001 to identify the regions with the most significant age differences
in strategy discriminability. These were found in regions of the precuneus and posterior
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 24

cingulate cortex, also known as the posterior medial cortex (PMC), and bilateral lateral occipital
cortex/superior parietal lobe, reported in Table 6 and Figure 3. No regions significantly showed
greater predictability for older adults than younger adults, even at a less conservative threshold
of FWE-corrected p<0.05.
25% Most Predictive Voxels Overlap Maps
Color maps in Figure 4 visually represent the overlap in strategy discriminability across
individual participants within each age group. The number in each voxel of the figure
corresponds to the number of participants for whom that voxel was among the 25% most
predictive above chance. The majority of the cortex is predictive for at least one participant for
both age groups, and both groups show the greatest extent of overlap in the posterior regions.
Greater degree of overlap is seen for younger than older adults. Younger adults were found to
have higher average classification accuracies within their top 25% above chance predictive
voxels (M=0.808, SD=0.02) than older adults (M= 0.676, SD= 0.02), t(1,22)= 4.361,
p<0.001.(Figures 5 and 6).
Univariate Activation Differences between Reappraisal and Distraction
A one-sample t-test of Reappraise > Distract collapsed across age, showed peak
activation in regions of the lateral occipital cortex, superior frontal gyrus (SFG), and inferior
frontal gyrus (IFG) (see Table 7). A one sample t-test of Distract > Reappraise showed greater
activation for both age groups in the precuneus, medial frontal gyrus (MFG), anterior cingulate
(ACC), and frontal pole (see Table 8). A significant interaction of age (‘younger’, ‘older’) by
condition difference (Reappraise>Distract, Distract> Reappraise) revealed differences within
the precuneus, PCC, and left supramarginal gyrus (reported in Table 9). Condition difference
contrasts are reported separately for age in Figure 8.
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 25

The mean percent signal change for each participant during Distract>Baseline and
Reappraisal>Baseline was extracted from the areas described in Table 9, in order to investigate
the nature of the age x condition difference interaction. It was found that younger adults showed
less activation of the precuneus, PCC, and left supramarginal gyrus during reappraisal than
during distraction, but no difference in activation across strategy condition was found for older
adults (see Figure 7).
Activation maps were also analyzed for each age group separately. A one-sample t-test
for younger adults of Reappraise > Distract showed activation in regions including orbitofrontal
cortex, frontal pole, SFG, IFG, MFG, thalamus and lateral occipital cortex/superior parietal lobe
(see Table 10). T-test for older adults for Reappraise > Distract activated regions including the
lateral occipital cortex/superior parietal lobe, IFG, MFG, frontal pole, and temporal cortex (see
Table 11). For younger adults, the one-sample t-test of Distract > Reappraise showed activity in
regions of the supramarginal gyrus, posterior cingulate and precuneus cortex (also known as the
posterior medial cortex—PMC), and frontal pole (see Table 12). No regions survived the single-
group t-test of Distract > Reappraise for older adults.
Eyetracking classification analyses
A one-sample t-test collapsed by age was conducted on the average MVPA
classification prediction accuracies for each participant based on eye gaze information. MVPA
classification accuracies showed a significant improvement (M=0.58, SD=0.14) beyond chance
prediction (0.50) of strategy condition, t(19)=2.618, p<0.017. When age groups were considered
separately, neither older adults (M=0.57, SD=0.14, t(11)=1.735, p=0.111), nor younger adults
(M=0.60, SD=0.15, t(7)=1.907, p=0.098), showed significant MVPA eyetracking strategy
predictions above chance. Classification accuracies from the top 25% brain voxels (M=0.72,
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 26

SD=0.091) were found to significantly out-predict eye gaze MVPA classification accuracies
(M=0.58, SD=0.14) in a one-sample paired t-test, t(19)=5.275, p<0.001. Top 25% voxel
prediction accuracies (M=0.68, SD=0.07) outperformed eye gaze classifications for older adults
when considered separately (M=0.57, SD=0.14), t(11)=4.027, p<0.002. Top 25% voxel
prediction accuracies for younger adults (M=0.80, SD=0.07) also outperformed eye gaze
classifications when age groups were considered separately (M=0.60, SD=0.15), t(7)=3.839,
p<0.006.
Discussion

In this study, we investigated the neural differentiation of reappraisal (stimulus-focused
positive reinterpretation) and distraction (self-focused pleasant imagery) emotion regulation
strategies for younger and older adults using Multi-Voxel Pattern Analyses (MVPA) and
univariate methods. Participants performed an fMRI emotion regulation task, and were tested on
their memory for the regulated images afterwards. We explored whether reappraisal and
distraction emotion regulation processes would be more differentiated in the brain for younger
than older adults (hypothesis 1), whether reappraisal and distraction would lead to a medial-
lateral differentiation between strategies for both age groups (hypothesis 2), and whether frontal
regions would discriminate between emotion regulation strategies differently for the two age
groups (hypothesis 3).
Better Encoding of Reappraised Items is Consistent Across Age Groups
In both age groups, participants recalled images encountered during the reappraise
condition better than those encountered during the distract condition (see Figure 2). Previous
work shows that higher engagement and the enhancement of the personal relevance of images
leads to higher memory recall, while the suppression of emotional expressions during image
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 27

viewing results in lower memory for items (Dillon, Ritchey, Johnson, & LaBar, 2007; Hayes et
al., 2010). This strategic differentiation could reflect the relocation of attentional focus, away
from the stimulus during internal control of facial expressivity, and towards the stimulus during
enhancement of the personal relevance of the items (Richards, 2004). Dillon and colleagues
(2007) argue that greater stimulus-engagement and self-referential processing of stimuli during
the enhancement condition leads to deeper levels of encoding, and may explain memory
benefits (Craik & Tulving, 1975; Symons & Johnson, 1997). In this study, we expanded on
these findings and utilized emotion regulation strategy conditions that pitted self-referential
processing against stimulus engagement. Our reappraise strategy promoted engagement with the
stimulus and non-self referential processing, while our distract strategy promoted stimulus
avoidance and recall of a self-referential pleasant memory. Behavioral results show that
reappraised images were better remembered than distract items, confirming that stimulus
engagement and greater depth-of-processing aids in memory performance. In addition, we did
not find a significant interaction between age and condition, or a main effect of age, F < 1. This
indicates that both younger and older adults encoded images differently across the two cued
strategies, but this difference did not differ by age (see Figure 2). This finding serves as a
manipulation check, and discounts the possibility that older adults might show decreased
differentiation in the brain due to a failure to differentially perform the two regulation strategies
when cued to do so. Memory differences reflect differential encoding of the strategies, and
suggest that both age groups performed the strategies in similar ways.
Older Adults Show Neural Dedifferentiation of Reappraisal and Distraction
We hypothesized that MVPA analyses would reveal a greater degree of differentiation
between reappraisal and distraction for younger adults than older adults, and our findings
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 28

supported these expectations. MVPA analyses showed that younger adults had significantly
higher mean strategy classification accuracies within their 25% top predictive voxels (see
Figures 6), suggesting that older adults show neural dedifferentiation of reappraisal and
distraction emotion regulation strategies. Furthermore, emotion regulation strategies were more
distinct for younger than older adults in widespread regions in both frontal and posterior cortex
(see Table 5), with the greatest age-related changes in areas of the PMC and the lateral occipital
cortex/superior parietal lobe (see Table 6). The PMC and lateral occipital cortex/superior
parietal lobe were found to be predictive of strategy condition for both age groups separately
(see Table 3 and 4), indicating that the differentiation of reappraisal and distraction in these
regions is reduced, but still present in later life.
These findings indicate that older adults show more dedifferentiated activation patterns
across emotion regulation contexts than younger adults. Dedifferentiation in later life has
previously been found in both memory and visual processing studies. Older adults demonstrate
a lack of differentiation in memory, showing difficulty encoding the context in which words,
sounds and images are learned, decreased pattern separation, and greater reliance on gist
memory (Gutchess et al., 2007; Naveh-Benjamin & Craik, 1995; Stark, Yassa, & Stark, 2010).
Ventral visual processing also demonstrates age-related dedifferentiation, as older adults
unselectively activate visual regions for different classes of stimuli, which activate specialized
structures in younger adults (Grady et al., 1992; Park et al., 2004; Voss et al., 2008). We extend
these findings, showing that emotion regulation strategies are also less discrete, and more
overlapping in their representations in the aging brain, showing decreased classification
accuracy across strategies. In order to further investigate the age-related differences in activity
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 29

patterns across emotion regulation strategies, we conducted univariate follow-up analyses,
discussed below.
Posterior Medial Regions Differentiate Emotion Regulation Strategies for Younger but
not Older Adults
Contrary to our second hypothesis, decreased involvement of medial structures in
reappraisal was only found for younger adults. GLM analyses revealed a significant Age x
Condition interaction in the PMC, in which the younger adults activated the PMC less during
reappraisal than distraction, but older adults showed no difference in activation across strategies
(see Figure 7). Activity in the PMC is reported during episodic memory tasks (Naghavi &
Nyberg, 2005; Nyberg, 1999), and is more involved in the recall of specific than general
memories (Addis, McIntosh, Moscovitch, Crawley, & McAndrews, 2004). PMC is also more
active when participants read short stories written in the first-person than in the third-person
(Vogeley et al., 2001), highlighting its role in self-referential processing. Given the PMC’s
putative role in episodic retrieval and self-referential processing, we expected the region to
activate more during the distraction condition than during reappraisal, but this was only
confirmed in the younger adult sample.
The PMC is also a key component in the default mode network (DMN; Fox et al., 2005;
Gusnard, Akbudak, Shulman, & Raichle, 2001). The DMN is recruited during non-goal-directed
processes such as resting state activity and mind-wandering (Christoff, Gordon, Smallwood,
Smith, & Schooler, 2009; Mason et al., 2007), and also during goal-directed tasks with internal
goals such as placing oneself in the mental states of others (Mitchell et al., 2006), prospective
future thinking (Schacter, Addis & Buckner, 2007, Schacter et al., 2012), and self-referential
thinking (Hassabis, et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 2006). Taken together, these studies show that
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 30

the PMC is involved in tasks that drive focus away from external stimuli, and promote internal
processing.
Furthermore, in younger adults the DMN is found to activate at levels lower than
baseline (deactivate) during stimulus-focused cognitive tasks, and the degree of DMN
deactivation predicts activity in task-related regions (Greicius, Krasnow, Reiss, & Menon,
2003). Decreases in DMN activity have been found to be a function of increasing task difficulty
(McKiernan, Kaufman, Kucera-Thompson, & Binder, 2003; McKiernan, D’Angelo, Kaufman
& Binder, 2006), with higher cognitive load leading to greater dampening of the DMN. These
findings indicate that disengagement from the DMN during task performance represents an
ability to shift focus towards external task demands, and away from internal self-processing.
The distraction task required disengagement from the stimulus and self-referential
processing of a positive memory. In contrast, the reappraisal task required stimulus-focused
processing of a negative emotional stimulus. Therefore, we expected greater activity in DMN
regions during the distraction condition, and less activity in the DMN during reappraisal. Self-
relational processing has been previously shown to increase activity in medial prefrontal
structures, while stimulus focus led to greater activations in the lateral prefrontal cortex during
emotion regulation (Ochsner et al., 2004). In this study, we found a medial-lateral
differentiation in younger participants, who showed greater involvement of posterior medial
structures during distraction than reappraisal.
However, contrary to our initial expectations, we found that older adults failed to
decrease activation in these posterior medial regions during reappraisal. Older adults have been
shown to fail to disengage from DMN regions during many stimulus-focused cognitive tasks,
including encoding, recognition, and semantic classification (Lustig et al. 2003; Grady et al.
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 31

2006; Persson, Lustig, Nelson, & Reuter-Lorenz, 2007; Park et al. 2010; Sambataro et al. 2010).
In our study, older adults were shown to activate structures in the PMC during reappraisal,
showing a failure to suppress activity in these DMN processing areas, even when task demands
promote disengagement. The lack of disengagement from the DMN could reflect older adults’
greater self-relational processing across task contexts with increasing age (Kensinger & Leclerc,
2009), and a dedifferentiation of self-relational processing across contexts.
It is important to note that we found age-related differences between emotion regulation
strategy representations in the posterior regions of the DMN, but not in medial prefrontal
regions. A recent meta-analysis found that the medial frontal component of the DMN is more
active when thinking about the self than others, and posterior regions are more active during
mentalizing of others and familiar stimuli (Qin & Northoff, 2011). Given the high degree of
positive distraction memories involving the self in relation to others (see Table 13), involvement
of the PMC may reflect self-relational processing rather than contemplating the self in isolation.
Frontal Regions Better Discriminate Emotion Regulation Strategies for Younger than
Older Adults
We were interested in clarifying the differentiation of the PFC across emotion regulation
strategies, and whether similar patterns would be found in older and younger adults. As detailed
in Table 5, although there were no medial PFC regions that were significantly more
differentiated by regulation strategy for younger than for older adults, the MVPA analyses
revealed that other frontal regions did discriminate strategy conditions better for younger than
older adults. When the groups were examined separately, older adults showed greatest
differentiation of strategies in areas including regions in the middle frontal gyrus (MFG), and
posterior regions in the lateral occipital cortex/superior parietal lobe (LO/SPL), precuneus, and
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 32

posterior cingulate (pCC) (see Table 3). Younger adults, on the other hand, showed
differentiation of strategies in more widespread areas in the frontal cortex, including the frontal
pole, inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), MFG, superior frontal gyrus (SFG), and anterior cingulate
cortex (aCC), as well as posterior regions in the pCC, precuneus, and LO/SPL (see Table 4).
Findings indicate that reappraisal and distraction are more differentiated for younger adults,
showing a greater extent of discrimination in regions of the prefrontal cortex than older adults.
These results extend the findings of Urry et al (2006), which showed decreased involvement of
frontal centers during reappraisal for older adults. In contrast with other studies that suggest
that involvement of prefrontal regions in reappraisal is preserved across age (Winecoff et al.,
2009; van Reekum et al., 2007), our study showed decreased differentiation of emotion
regulation strategies in the PFC in older adults.
Other Findings and Considerations
MVPA searchlight results also revealed that the superior lateral occipital cortex (LO)/
superior parietal lobule (SPL) was found to predict strategy condition for both age groups
separately, and was more predictive for younger than older adults. The superior parietal lobule
is known to direct selective attention towards goal-related targets (Behrmann, Geng, &
Shomstein, 2004), and also allocate attentional resources towards episodic memory retrieval
(Ciaramelli, Grady, & Moscovitch, 2008), supporting recruitment of the SPL in attentional
control for both reappraisal and distraction strategies.
GLM results within age groups separately found that the LO/SPL was more active
during reappraisal than during distraction (see Table 10 and 11), but traditional univariate
methods failed to detect any age-related differences. MVPA analyses, in contrast, revealed
greater discrimination between activation patterns across strategies for younger than older
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 33

adults. Taken together, these findings could suggest greater overlap in the coordination of
attentional control across conditions for older adults. We are cautious to not draw strong
inferences, since we cannot know the nature of this age-related difference, but greater activation
in LO/SPL for could indicate greater focus of attention towards image processing during
reappraisal than distraction, and greater direction of resources for younger than older adults. In
order to determine whether these results might be driven by gaze-related control of visual
attention, eyetracking analyses were conducted and are reviewed below.
Eyetracking Manipulation Check

As a manipulation check, we investigated the role of gaze patterns in predicting emotion
regulation strategy condition. Previous work has shown that the a high degree of variance in
brain activation when reappraising emotional images can be explained by visual attentional
deployment (van Reekum et al., 2007). In order to control for the possibility that
dedifferentiation findings may be entirely explained by gaze position, we investigated the
predictive power of gaze location to predict emotion regulation strategy condition with MVPA.
Although eyetracking was found to predict strategy condition above chance level, when age
groups were collapsed, classification accuracy within the top 25% of voxels was found to
significantly out-predict eye gaze in terms of differentiating strategy conditions. This finding
was true for all participants collapsed together, as well as for each age group considered
separately. These findings support that gaze location alone could not be driving the brain-based
MVPA classifier results, supporting strategic differences in brain regions reported as
representing more than mechanisms driving gaze towards or away from the image on the
screen.
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 34

Alternative Interpretations and Study Limitations

This study had limitations that restrict the possible generalizations and inferences that
can be made. The first limitation is that our distraction and reappraisal task differ along two
dimensions, including level of engagement with the stimulus, and degree of self-focus during
emotion regulation. In our discussion, we highlighted the possible role of greater self-referential
processing in older adults across emotion regulation strategic contexts. However, given our use
of a self-reflective/stimulus-withdrawal distraction task and non-self-reflective/stimulus-
approach reappraisal task, differential PMC involvement across strategies could represent
stimulus avoidance, and direction of attention away from the image. Previous work has shown
greater activation in the PMC when participants disengage from emotional stimuli (Koenigsberg
et al., 2010). In addition, detachment from distracter stimuli has been linked to greater
functional connectivity between the DMN and regions associated with the goal-irrelevant target
(for instance, the fusiform face area is more functionally connected to the DMN when the goal
is to encode scenes, not faces; Chadick & Gazzaley, 2010). This supports the DMN’s
involvement in promoting selective engagement with stimuli based on task-goals. However,
differences in engagement and disengagement from stimuli would be expected to alter depth of
stimulus encoding, and in turn alter stimulus recall (Craik & Tulving, 1975). Although we
found interaction in the PMC across age, behavioral results indicated no age-related interaction
in memory recall across emotion regulation strategies (see Figure 2). This suggests that age-
related dedifferentiation of emotion regulation strategies in the brain are likely not reflective of
differences in engagement with stimuli at encoding. We instead interpret these differences as
age-related dedifferentiation of self-relational processing across emotion regulation strategic
contexts.
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 35

A second limitation of this study was the lack of a control condition, in which
participants passively viewed images but did not regulate emotion. Due to scan session time
constraints and the goal of increasing MVPA power through maximizing trials, all trials were
emotion regulation trials. Therefore, we cannot determine whether participants were able to
down-regulate amygdala activity relative to non-regulation contexts within this study. Another
limitation in this study was the small sample size collected (n=12 per group), and limited power
to detect effects in the t-tests conducted. Though MVPA analyses have high power to detect
differences between conditions and many previous accounts have utilized similar sample sizes
to ours in single-group designs, the between-subject analyses conducted in our study still suffer
from low power. However, given that we still found age-related differences, even with a small
sample size, this implies that our findings reflect large effect sizes. Future work should replicate
the study with larger samples, in order to confirm that these results represent true effects.
Finally, due to considerations of demand characteristics, and timing optimization, we also did
not assess measures of affective experience prior to and following regulation attempts. We
therefore lack a measure of improvement at the trial level, and thus cannot make claims about
emotion regulation strategy efficacy within this design.
Conclusion

In summary, we investigated the neural differentiation of emotion regulation strategies
with age by integrating multi-voxel pattern analysis and univariate methods in a neuroimaging
paradigm of reappraisal and distraction. MVPA findings revealed discrimination of strategies in
both age groups in regions of the PMC and LO/SPL, and discrimination in widespread regions
in the frontal cortex for younger adults only. Univariate analyses showed an Age x Strategy
interaction, in which activity in the PMC were decreased during reappraisal in younger adults,
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 36

but not older adults. Despite differences in brain differentiation across strategies, both older and
younger adults recalled reappraisal items more than distraction items, suggesting similar
encoding across age groups.
These findings suggest that in contrast to younger adults, older adults have less discrete
representations of reappraisal and distraction in the brain, and fail to disengage from DMN
structures during reappraisal. We propose that older adults may process emotional strategies in a
self-related manner even when the task directs attention away from the self. This failure to
selectively disengage from posterior medial regions in the DMN imply a global role of self-
processing in emotion regulation in later life.
Future studies should consider the relationship between disengagement from the DMN
and emotion regulation strategy efficacy. By directly testing whether the interaction found in
this study reflects hedonic improvements, we can make more direct claims about the age-related
dedifferentiation in the brain, and the lack of behavioral age differences found in this study.
Future investigations should also consider the relationship between emotion regulation strategy
use and strategy efficacy, in order to directly track relationships between subjective mood
ratings and differentiation of strategies in the brain. These future directions can help clarify
whether participants with greater discrimination across strategies show greater differences in
affective recovery, or whether discrimination differences reflect individual variation at the
neural but not experiential level. In addition, future work can investigate the contribution of
elaborative facility on pleasure-focused distraction. By quantifying the ease of mental imagery
involved in reappraisal and distraction conditions, we can better understand whether there are
age-related differences in strategy employment across age groups. These investigations will
help us determine whether degree of engagement with regions in the DMN are related to task
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 37

difficulty, or represent a baseline drive towards social processing of the self in relationship to
others in later life. These studies would aid us in understanding how emotion regulation
processing changes across the lifespan, and help uncover the mechanisms behind the common
claim of emotion regulation mastery in later life.

DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 38

References

Addis, D. R., McIntosh, A. R., Moscovitch, M., Crawley, A. P., & McAndrews, M. P. (2004).
Characterizing spatial and temporal features of autobiographical memory retrieval
networks: a partial least squares approach. Neuroimage, 23(4), 1460-1471.
Augustine, A. A., & Hemenover, S. H. (2009). On the relative effectiveness of affect regulation
strategies: A meta-analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 23(6), 1181-1220.
Bantick, S. J., Wise, R. G., Ploghaus, A., Clare, S., Smith, S. M., & Tracey, I. (2002). Imaging
how attention modulates pain in humans using functional MRI. Brain, 125(2), 310-319.
Banks, S. J., Eddy, K. T., Angstadt, M., Nathan, P. J., & Phan, K. L. (2007). Amygdala–frontal
connectivity during emotion regulation. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience,
2(4), 303-312.
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and emotional disorders. New York: International
Universities Press.
Behrmann, M., Geng, J. J., & Shomstein, S. (2004). Parietal cortex and attention. Current
opinion in neurobiology, 14(2), 212-217.
Boden, J. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Repressive coping: Distraction using pleasant
thoughts and memories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 45-62.
Bonanno, G. A., Keltner, D., Holen, A., & Horowitz, M. J. (1995). When avoiding unpleasant
emotions might not be such a bad thing: Verbal autonomic dissociation and midlife
conjugal bereavement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 975-989.
Brandt, J., Spencer, M., & Folstein, M. (1988). The Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status.
Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology, & Behavioral Neurology, 1(2), 111-117.
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 39

Buckner, R. L., & Carroll, D. C. (2007). Self-projection and the brain. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 11(2), 49-57.
Butler, E. A., Wilhelm, F. H., & Gross, J. J. (2006). Respiratory sinus arrhythmia, emotion, and
emotion regulation during social interaction. Psychophysiology, 43(6), 612-622.
Carp, J., Park, J., Hebrank, A., Park, D. C., & Polk, T. A. (2011). Age-related neural
dedifferentiation in the motor system. PloS one, 6(12), e29411.
Chadick, J. Z., & Gazzaley, A. (2011). Differential coupling of visual cortex with default or
frontal-parietal network based on goals. Nature neuroscience, 14(7), 830-832.
Charles, S. T., Mather, M., & Carstensen, L. L. (2003). Aging and emotional memory: The
forgettable nature of negative images for older adults. Journal of Experimental
Psychology-General, 132(2), 310.
Christoff, K., Gordon, A. M., Smallwood, J., Smith, R., & Schooler, J. W. (2009). Experience
sampling during fMRI reveals default network and executive system contributions to
mind wandering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(21), 8719-
8724.
Ciaramelli, E., Grady, C. L., & Moscovitch, M. (2008). Top-down and bottom-up attention to
memory: a hypothesis (AtoM) on the role of the posterior parietal cortex in memory
retrieval. Neuropsychologia, 46(7), 1828-1851.
Coifman, K. G., Bonanno, G. A., Ray, R. D., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Does repressive coping
promote resilience? Affective-autonomic response discrepancy during bereavement.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 745.
Craik, F. I., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic
memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268–294.
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 40

Dillon, D. G., Ritchey, M., Johnson, B. D., & LaBar, K. S. (2007). Dissociable effects of
conscious emotion regulation strategies on explicit and implicit memory. Emotion, 7(2),
354-365.
Erber, R., & Tesser, A. (1992). Task effort and the regulation of mood: The absorption
hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 339-359.
Erskine, J. A., Kvavilashvili, L., Conway, M. A., & Myers, L. (2007). The effects of age on
psychopathology, well-being and repressive coping. Aging and Mental Health, 11(4),
394-404.
Frankenstein, U. N., Richter, W., McIntyre, M. C., & Remy, F. (2001). Distraction modulates
anterior cingulate gyrus activations during the cold pressor test. Neuroimage, 14(4), 827-
836.
Fredrickson, B. L., Mancuso, R. A., Branigan, C., & Tugade, M. M. (2000). The undoing effect
of positive emotions. Motivation and emotion, 24(4), 237-258.
Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2000). Stress, positive emotion, and coping. Current
directions in psychological science, 9(4), 115-118.
Fox, M. D., Snyder, A. Z., Vincent, J. L., Corbetta, M., Van Essen, D. C., & Raichle, M. E.
(2005). The human brain is intrinsically organized into dynamic, anticorrelated
functional networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 102(27), 9673-9678.
Gazzaley, A., Cooney, J. W., Rissman, J., & D'Esposito, M. (2005). Top-down suppression
deficit underlies working memory impairment in normal aging. Nature neuroscience,
8(10), 1298-1300.
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 41

Gitelman, D. R. (2002). ILAB: a program for postexperimental eye movement analysis.
Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 34(4), 605-612.
Goh, J. O. (2011). Functional dedifferentiation and altered connectivity in older adults: neural
accounts of cognitive aging. Aging and disease, 2(1), 30.
Goh, J. O., Suzuki, A., & Park, D. C. (2010). Reduced neural selectivity increases fMRI
adaptation with age during face discrimination. Neuroimage, 51(1), 336-344.
Grady, C. L., Haxby, J. V., Horwitz, B., Schapiro, M. B., Rapoport, S. I., Ungerleider, L. G., ...
& Herscovitch, P. (1992). Dissociation of object and spatial vision in human extrastriate
cortex: Age-related changes in activation of regional cerebral blood flow measured with
[15 O] water and positron emission tomography. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,
4(1), 23-34.
Grady, C. L., Springer, M. V., Hongwanishkul, D., Mcintosh, A. R., & Winocur, G. (2006).
Age-related changes in brain activity across the adult lifespan. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 18(2), 227-241.
Greicius, M. D., Krasnow, B., Reiss, A. L., & Menon, V. (2003). Functional connectivity in the
resting brain: a network analysis of the default mode hypothesis. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 100(1), 253-258.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes:
Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 85(2), 348-362.
Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1997). Hiding feelings: The acute effects of inhibiting negative
and positive emotion. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106(1), 95-103.
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 42

Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent-and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent
consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of personality and
social psychology, 74, 224-237.
Gusnard, D. A., Akbudak, E., Shulman, G. L., & Raichle, M. E. (2001). Medial prefrontal
cortex and self-referential mental activity: relation to a default mode of brain function.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(7), 4259-4264.
Gutchess A. H., Hebrank, A., Sutton, B. P., Leshikar, E., Chee, M. W. L., Tan, J. C., Goh, J. O.
S., & Park, D. C. (2007). Contextual interference in recognition memory with age.
Neuroimage, 35(3), 1338–1347.
Hashtroudi, S., Johnson, M. K., & Chrosniak, L. D. (1990). Aging and qualitative
characteristics of memories for perceived and imagined complex events. Psychology and
Aging, 5, 119–126.
Hassabis, D., Kumaran, D., & Maguire, E. A. (2007). Using imagination to understand the
neural basis of episodic memory. The Journal of Neuroscience, 27(52), 14365-14374.
Hayes J. P., Morey, R. A., Petty, C. M., Seth, S., Smoski, M. J., McCarthy, G. & LaBar, K. S.
Staying cool when things get hot: emotion regulation modulates neural mechanisms of
memory encoding (2010). Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 4(230), 1-10.
Hodes, R. L., Rowland, E. W., Lightfoot, N., & Cleeland, C. S. (1990). The effects of
distraction on responses to cold pressor pain. Pain, 41(1), 109-114.
Holland, C. A., & Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1990). Autobiographical and text recall in the elderly: An
investigation of a processing resource deficit. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 42(3), 441-470.
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 43

Isaacowitz, D. M., Toner, K., Goren, D., & Wilson, H. R. (2008). Looking while unhappy
mood-congruent gaze in young adults, positive gaze in older adults. Psychological
Science, 19(9), 848-853.
Jackson, D. C., Malmstadt, J. R., Larson, C. L., & Davidson, R. J. (2000). Suppression and
enhancement of emotional responses to unpleasant pictures. Psychophysiology, 37(4),
515-522.
Jacques, P. L. S., Conway, M. A., Lowder, M. W., & Cabeza, R. (2011). Watching my mind
unfold versus yours: An fMRI study using a novel camera technology to examine neural
differences in self-projection of self versus other perspectives. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 23(6), 1275-1284.
Jenkinson, M., Bannister. P., Brady, M. & Smith, S. (2002) Improved optimisation for the
robust and accurate linear registration and motion correction of brain images.
NeuroImage 17(2), 825-84.
Jackson, D. C., Malmstadt, J. R., Larson, C. L., & Davidson, R. J. (2000). Suppression and
enhancement of emotional responses to unpleasant pictures. Psychophysiology, 37(4),
515-522.
Jimura, K., & Poldrack, R. A. (2012). Analyses of regional-average activation and multivoxel
pattern information tell complementary stories. Neuropsychologia, 50(4), 544-552.
Johnson, M. K., Raye, C. L., Mitchell, K. J., Touryan, S. R., Greene, E. J., & Nolen-Hoeksema,
S. (2006). Dissociating medial frontal and posterior cingulate activity during self-
reflection. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 1(1), 56-64.
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 44

Kalisch, R., Wiech, K., Critchley, H. D., Seymour, B., O'Doherty, J. P., Oakley, D. A., ... &
Dolan, R. J. (2005). Anxiety reduction through detachment: subjective, physiological,
and neural effects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(6), 874-883.

Kanske, P., Heissler, J., Schönfelder, S., Bongers, A., & Wessa, M. (2011). How to regulate
emotion? Neural networks for reappraisal and distraction. Cerebral Cortex, 21(6), 1379-
1388.
Kennedy, Q., Mather, M., & Carstensen, L. L. (2004). The role of motivation in the age-related
positivity effect in autobiographical memory. Psychological Science, 15(3), 208-214.
Kensinger, E. A., & Leclerc, C. M. (2009). Age-related changes in the neural mechanisms
supporting emotion processing and emotional memory. European Journal of Cognitive
Psychology, 21(2-3), 192-215.
Koenigsberg, H. W., Fan, J., Ochsner, K. N., Liu, X., Guise, K., Pizzarello, S., ... & Siever, L. J.
(2010). Neural correlates of using distancing to regulate emotional responses to social
situations. Neuropsychologia, 48(6), 1813-1822.
Kriegeskorte, N., Goebel, R., & Bandettini P. (2006). Information-based functional brain
mapping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 103, 3863–3868.
Kriegeskorte N, Bandettini P (2007) Analyzing for information, not activation, to exploit high-
resolution fMRI. Neuroimage, 38, 649–662.
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1999). International affective picture system
(IAPS): Technical manual and affective ratings.
Lawton, M. P., Kleban, M. H., Rajagopal, D., & Dean, J. (1992). Dimensions of affective
experience in three age groups. Psychology and Aging, 7(2), 171-184.
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 45

Lévesque, J., Eugène, F., Joanette, Y., Paquette, V., Mensour, B., Beaudoin, G., ... &
Beauregard, M. (2003). Neural circuitry underlying voluntary suppression of sadness.
Biological psychiatry, 53(6), 502-510.
Li, S. C., & Lindenberger, U. (1999). Cross-level unification: A computational exploration of
the link between deterioration of neurotransmitter systems and dedifferentiation of
cognitive abilities in old age. In L.G. Bilsson & H. Markowitsch (Eds.), Cognitive
neuroscience of memory (pp. 104- 146). Toronto: Hogrefe & Huber.
Logan, J. M., Sanders, A. L., Snyder, A. Z., Morris, J. C., & Buckner, R. L. (2002). Under-
recruitment and nonselective recruitment: dissociable neural mechanisms associated
with aging. Neuron, 33(5), 827-840.
Lou, H. C., Luber, B., Crupain, M., Keenan, J. P., Nowak, M., Kjaer, T. W., ... & Lisanby, S. H.
(2004). Parietal cortex and representation of the mental self. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(17), 6827-6832.
Lustig, C., Snyder, A. Z., Bhakta, M., O'Brien, K. C., McAvoy, M., Raichle, M. E., ... &
Buckner, R. L. (2003). Functional deactivations: change with age and dementia of the
Alzheimer type. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(24), 14504-
14509.
Makris, N., Meyer, J., Bates, J., Caviness, V.S. Jr. & Kennedy, D.N. (1999). MRI-based
topographic parcellation of human cerebral white matter and nuclei: II. Rationale and
applications with systematics of cerebral connectivity. Neuroimage, 9(1), 17-45.
Mason, M. F., Norton, M. I., Van Horn, J. D., Wegner, D. M., Grafton, S. T., & Macrae, C. N.
(2007). Wandering minds: the default network and stimulus-independent thought.
Science, 315(5810), 393-395.
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 46

Mather, M., & Carstensen, L. L. (2003). Aging and attentional biases for emotional faces.
Psychological Science, 14(5), 409-415.
McKiernan, K. A., D'Angelo, B. R., Kaufman, J. N., & Binder, J. R. (2006). Interrupting the
“stream of consciousness”: an fMRI investigation. Neuroimage, 29(4), 1185-1191.
Mckiernan, K. A., Kaufman, J. N., Kucera-Thompson, J., & Binder, J. R. (2003). A parametric
manipulation of factors affecting task-induced deactivation in functional neuroimaging.
Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 15(3), 394-408.
McRae, K., Hughes, B., Chopra, S., Gabrieli, J. D., Gross, J. J., & Ochsner, K. N. (2010). The
neural bases of distraction and reappraisal. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(2),
248-262.
Mitchell, J.P., Macrae, C.N., & Banaji, M.R. (2006). Dissociable medial prefrontal
contributions to judgments of similar and dissimilar others. Neuron, 50(4), 655-663.
Mur, M., Bandettini, P.A., & Kriegeskorte, N. (2009). Revealing representational content with
pattern-information fMRI – An introductory guide. Social Cognitive and Affective
Neuroscience, 4, 101–109.
Naghavi, H. R., & Nyberg, L. (2005). Common fronto-parietal activity in attention, memory,
and consciousness: shared demands on integration? Consciousness and cognition, 14(2),
390-425.
Naveh-Benjamin, M., & Craik F. I. (1995). Memory for context and its use in item memory:
comparisons of younger and older persons. Psychology & Aging, 10(2), 284-93.
Nichols, T. E., & Holmes, A. P. (2002). Nonparametric permutation tests for functional
neuroimaging: a primer with examples. Human brain mapping, 15(1), 1-25.
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 47

Norman, K.A., Polyn, S.M., Detre, G.J., & Haxby, J.V. (2006) Beyond mind-reading: multi-
voxel pattern analysis of fMRI data. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10, 424–430.
Nyberg, L. (1999). Imaging episodic memory: Implications for cognitive theories and
phenomena. Memory, 7(5-6), 585-597.
Ochsner, K. N., Ray, R. D., Cooper, J. C., Robertson, E. R., Chopra, S., Gabrieli, J. D., &
Gross, J. J. (2004). For better or for worse: neural systems supporting the cognitive
down-and up-regulation of negative emotion. Neuroimage, 23(2), 483-499.
Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2005). The cognitive control of emotion. Trends in cognitive
sciences, 9(5), 242-249.
Opitz, P. C., Rauch, L. C., Terry, D. P., & Urry, H. L. (2012). Prefrontal mediation of age
differences in cognitive reappraisal. Neurobiology of Aging, 33(4), 645-655.
Park, D. C. (2000). The basic mechanisms accounting for age-related decline in cognitive
function. Cognitive aging: A primer, 11, 3-19.
Park, J., Carp, J., Hebrank, A., Park, D. C., & Polk, T. A. (2010). Neural specificity predicts
fluid processing ability in older adults. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30(27), 9253-9259.
Park, D. C., Polk, T. A., Hebrank, A. C., & Jenkins, L. J. (2009). Age differences in default
mode activity on easy and difficult spatial judgment tasks. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 3.
Park, D. C., Polk, T. A., Park, R., Minear, M., Savage, A., & Smith, M. R. (2004). Aging
reduces neural specialization in ventral visual cortex. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(35), 13091-13095.
Parkinson, B., & Totterdell, P. (1999). Classifying affect-regulation strategies. Cognition &
Emotion, 13(3), 277-303.
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 48

Parrott, W.G. (1993). Beyond hedonism: Motives for imbibing good moods and for maintaining
bad moods. D.M. Wegner, J.W. Pennebaker (Eds.), Handbook of mental control,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 278–308.
Pereira, F., Mitchell, T., Botvinick, M. (2009). Machine learning classifiers and fMRI: a tutorial
overview. Neuroimage 45: 199–209.
Persson, J., Lustig, C., Nelson, J. K. & Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. (2007). Age differences in
deactivation: a link to cognitive control? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1021–
1032.
Petrovic, P., Petersson, K. M., Ghatan, P. H., Stone-Elander, S., & Ingvar, M. (2000). Pain-
related cerebral activation is altered by a distracting cognitive task. Pain, 85(1), 19-30.
Phan, K. L., Fitzgerald, D. A., Nathan, P. J., Moore, G. J., Uhde, T. W., & Tancer, M. E.
(2005). Neural substrates for voluntary suppression of negative affect: A functional
magnetic resonance imaging study. Biological Psychiatry, 57(3), 210-219.
Qin, P., & Northoff, G. (2011). How is our self related to midline regions and the default-mode
network? Neuroimage, 57(3), 1221-1233.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the
general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.
Raizada, R. D. S., Tsao, F. M., Liu, H. M., Holloway, I. D., Ansari, D. & Kuhl, P. K. (2010)
Linking brain-wide multivoxel activation patterns to behaviour: examples from language
and math. Neuroimage, 51, 462-471.
Raz, N., Lindenberger, U., Rodrigue, K. M., Kennedy, K. M., Head, D., Williamson, A., ... &
Acker, J. D. (2005). Regional brain changes in aging healthy adults: general trends,
individual differences and modifiers. Cerebral cortex, 15(11), 1676-1689.
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 49

Richards, J. M. (2004). The cognitive consequences of concealing feelings. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 13, 131-134.
Riediger, M., Schmiedek, F., Wagner, G. G., & Lindenberger, U. (2009). Seeking pleasure and
seeking pain: Differences in prohedonic and contra-hedonic motivation from
adolescence to old age. Psychological Science, 20, 1529-1535.
Sambataro, F., Murty, V. P., Callicott, J. H., Tan, H. Y., Das, S., Weinberger, D. R., & Mattay,
V. S. (2010). Age-related alterations in default mode network: impact on working
memory performance. Neurobiology of aging, 31(5), 839.
Schacter, D. L., Addis, D. R. and Buckner (2007). The Prospective Brain: Remembering the
Past to Imagine the Future. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8, 657-661.
Schacter, D. L., Addis, D. R., Hassabis, D., Martin, V. C., Spreng, R. N., & Szpunar, K. K.
(2012). The future of memory: remembering, imagining, and the brain. Neuron, 76(4),
677-694.
Scheibe, S., & Blanchard-Fields, F. (2009). Effects of regulating emotions on cognitive
performance: What is costly for young adults is not so costly for older adults.
Psychology and aging, 24(1), 217.
Smith, S. (2002). Fast Robust Automated Brain Extraction. Human Brain Mapping 17(3),143-
155.
Stark S. M., Yassa, M. A., Stark, C. E. L. (2010). Individual differences in spatial pattern
separation performance associated with healthy aging in humans. Learning and Memory
17(6), 284–288.
Symons, C. S., & Johnson, B. T. (1997). The self-reference effect in memory: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 121, 371–394.
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 50

Tellegen, A., Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures
of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070.
Urry, H. L., van Reekum, C. M., Johnstone, T., Kalin, N. H., Thurow, M. E., Schaefer, H. S., ...
& Davidson, R. J. (2006). Amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex are inversely
coupled during regulation of negative affect and predict the diurnal pattern of cortisol
secretion among older adults. The Journal of Neuroscience, 26(16), 4415-4425.
van Reekum, C. M., Johnstone, T., Urry, H. L., Thurow, M. E., Schaefer, H. S., Alexander, A.
L., & Davidson, R. J. (2007). Gaze fixations predict brain activation during the
voluntary regulation of picture-induced negative affect. Neuroimage, 36(3), 1041-1055.
Vogeley, K., Bussfeld, P., Newen, A., Herrmann, S., Happe, F., Falkai, P., ... & Zilles, K.
(2001). Mind reading: neural mechanisms of theory of mind and self-perspective.
Neuroimage, 14(1), 170-181.
Voss, M. W., Erickson, K. I., Chaddock, L., Prakash, R. S., Colcombe, S. J., Morris, K. S., ... &
Kramer, A. F. (2008). Dedifferentiation in the visual cortex: an fMRI investigation of
individual differences in older adults. Brain research, 1244, 121-131.
Whitney, C., Huber, W., Klann, J., Weis, S., Krach, S., & Kircher, T. (2009). Neural correlates
of narrative shifts during auditory story comprehension. Neuroimage, 47(1), 360-366.
Winecoff, A., LaBar, K. S., Madden, D. J., Cabeza, R., & Huettel, S. A. (2011). Cognitive and
neural contributors to emotion regulation in aging. Social cognitive and affective
neuroscience, 6(2), 165-176.
Woolrich, M. W., Ripley, B. D., Brady, M., & Smith, S. M. (2001). Temporal autocorrelation in
univariate linear modeling of FMRI data. Neuroimage, 14(6), 1370-1386.
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 51

Worsley, K.J. (2001) Statistical analysis of activation images. Ch 14, in Functional MRI: An
Introduction to Methods, eds. P. Jezzard, P.M. Matthews and S.M. Smith.
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 52

Tables and Figures

Figure 1. Subjects performed four runs of the Emotion Regulation Task during the scan session.
Each run was composed of one distract and one reappraise block, and each block contained
eight trials of the same strategy type. Prior to each block, subjects were cued to which strategy
they would be utilizing at each block start, and were reminded of the strategy meaning. In each
trial, subjects viewed a negative emotional image on either the left or right side of the screen
(counterbalanced), and were presented with the strategy cue on the opposite side. Emotion
regulation was sustained throughout the 10s image duration. At the end of the trial, subjects
rated the perceived intensity of the image post-regulation on a 4-item Likert scale. (A) During
‘Distract’ trials, subjects regulated their emotions using a specific autobiographical memory
chosen during the training period prior to the scan. (B) During ‘Reappraise’ blocks, subjects
regulated their emotions by imagining how the image could not be as bad as it seems, or have a
positive end outcome.

DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 53

Figure 2. Number of items successfully freely recalled by strategy condition. At the end of the
fMRI scan, subjects were asked to freely recall and describe the images seen during the scan.
For both older and younger adults, items encountered in the ‘reappraise’ condition (M=11.21,
SD=3.50) were more frequently recalled than items seen in the ‘distract’ condition (M= 7.42,
SD= 3.12), F(1,22)=24.028, p<0.001.
Dedifferentiation of Emotion Regulation 20

Figure 2. Number of items freely recalled by strategy condition. At the end of the fMRI scan,
subjects were asked to freely recall and describe the images seen during the scan. For both older
and younger adults, items encountered in the ‘reappraise’ condition were more frequently
recalled than items seen in the ‘distract’ condition, F(1,22)=24.028, p<0.001.

Figure 3. Regions most predictive of emotion regulation strategy, found to be more predictive
for younger than older adults MVPA searchlights, indicated by two-sample non-parametric t-test
of age, p<0.005. Axial slice depicted is MNI coordinate z=38.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Older Adults Younger Adults
Number of Items Recalled
Reappraise
Distract
PMC
Lateral
Occipital
z!=!38!

Figure 2. Number of items freely recalled by strategy condition. At the end of the fMRI
scan, subjects were asked to freely recall and describe the images seen during the scan.
For both older and younger adults, items encountered in the ‘reappraise’ condition were
more frequently recalled than items seen in the ‘distract’ condition, F(1,22)=24.028,
p<0.001.

Figure 3. Regions most predictive of emotion regulation strategy, found to be more
predictive for younger than older adults MVPA searchlights, indicated by two-sample
non-parametric t-test of age, p<0.005. Axial slice depicted is MNI coordinate z=38.

Dedifferentiation of Emotion Regulation 20

Figure 2. Number of items freely recalled by strategy condition. At the end of the fMRI scan,
subjects were asked to freely recall and describe the images seen during the scan. For both older
and younger adults, items encountered in the ‘reappraise’ condition were more frequently
recalled than items seen in the ‘distract’ condition, F(1,22)=24.028, p<0.001.

Figure 3. Regions most predictive of emotion regulation strategy, found to be more predictive
for younger than older adults MVPA searchlights, indicated by two-sample non-parametric t-test
of age, p<0.005. Axial slice depicted is MNI coordinate z=38.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Older Adults Younger Adults
Number of Items Recalled
Reappraise
Distract
PMC
Lateral
Occipital
z!=!38!
*
*
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 54

Figure 3. Regions most predictive of emotion regulation strategy, found to be more predictive
for younger than older adults MVPA searchlights, indicated by two-sample non-parametric t-
test of age, p<0.005. Axial slice depicted is MNI coordinate z=38.

Dedifferentiation of Emotion Regulation 20

Figure 2. Number of items freely recalled by strategy condition. At the end of the fMRI scan,
subjects were asked to freely recall and describe the images seen during the scan. For both older
and younger adults, items encountered in the ‘reappraise’ condition were more frequently
recalled than items seen in the ‘distract’ condition, F(1,22)=24.028, p<0.001.

Figure 3. Regions most predictive of emotion regulation strategy, found to be more predictive
for younger than older adults MVPA searchlights, indicated by two-sample non-parametric t-test
of age, p<0.005. Axial slice depicted is MNI coordinate z=38.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Older Adults Younger Adults
Number of Items Recalled
Reappraise
Distract
PMC
Lateral
Occipital
z!=!38!

Figure 2. Number of items freely recalled by strategy condition. At the end of the fMRI
scan, subjects were asked to freely recall and describe the images seen during the scan.
For both older and younger adults, items encountered in the ‘reappraise’ condition were
more frequently recalled than items seen in the ‘distract’ condition, F(1,22)=24.028,
p<0.001.

Figure 3. Regions most predictive of emotion regulation strategy, found to be more
predictive for younger than older adults MVPA searchlights, indicated by two-sample
non-parametric t-test of age, p<0.005. Axial slice depicted is MNI coordinate z=38.

Dedifferentiation of Emotion Regulation 20

Figure 2. Number of items freely recalled by strategy condition. At the end of the fMRI scan,
subjects were asked to freely recall and describe the images seen during the scan. For both older
and younger adults, items encountered in the ‘reappraise’ condition were more frequently
recalled than items seen in the ‘distract’ condition, F(1,22)=24.028, p<0.001.

Figure 3. Regions most predictive of emotion regulation strategy, found to be more predictive
for younger than older adults MVPA searchlights, indicated by two-sample non-parametric t-test
of age, p<0.005. Axial slice depicted is MNI coordinate z=38.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Older Adults Younger Adults
Number of Items Recalled
Reappraise
Distract
PMC
Lateral
Occipital
z!=!38!
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 55

Figure 4. Top 25% Most predictive voxels from each subject’s searchlight maps were
thresholded above chance (accuracy=0.5) for each subject, and the top 25% remaining voxels
were extracted, reported at MNI x= 45, y= 24, z= 50. (A). Top 25% maps above chance for each
older adult subject were binarized, and summed to show degree of overlap for all older adult
subjects, and numbers indicate degree of subject overlap at each voxel. (B). Top 25% overlap
maps were calculated for younger adults via in the same method.

DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 56

Figure 5. Average Classifier Accuracies for Individual Subjects’ Top 25% Voxels. Mean
MVPA classifier prediction accuracies were extracted for each subject’s top 25% predictive
voxels above chance. Blue box indicates accuracies at or below chance level. All subjects show
classification accuracies above chance.

DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 57

Figure 6. Mean Classifier Accuracies Performance Across Age Groups for Top 25% Voxels.
Mean MVPA classifier performance accuracies were extracted for each subject’s top 25%
predictive voxels above chance, and then averaged across age groups separately. Younger adults
show higher classifier performance (M=0.808, SD=0.02) than older adults (M= 0.676, SD=
0.02), t(1,22)= 4.361, p<0.001.
0!
0.2!
0.4!
0.6!
0.8!
1!
Older Adults! Younger Adults!
*
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 58

Figure 4. Activation Patterns for Age x Strategy Condition Interaction
(A). Two-sample t-test results of Age x Condition shows interaction in the Posterior Medial
Cortex (PMC) and left Supramarginal Gyrus, p<0.05, z=2.3 cluster-thresholded. (B).
Percent signal change was extracted from regions showing Age x Condition interaction in
(A), for each subject in each age group separately. Younger adults show less activation
during Reappraise>Baseline than Distract>Baseline, while older adults show no difference
in activation between conditions.

!0.2%
!0.15%
!0.1%
!0.05%
0%
0.05%
0.1%
0.15%
Percent%Signal%Change%
Older Adults Younger Adults!
Reappraise!
Distract!
!0.2%
!0.15%
!0.1%
!0.05%
0%
0.05%
0.1%
0.15%
Percent%Signal%Change%
Older Adults Younger Adults!
Reappraise!
Distract!
B.#
A.#
PMC
Left
Supramarginal
Gyrus

Age$x$Condition$
Interaction$

Figure 7. Mean Percent Signal Change for Distraction and Reappraisal Across Age Groups. (A).
Interaction of Age x Condition Difference, indicated by two-sample t-tests, cluster-thresholded
z=2.3, p<0.05. (B) Interaction of Age x Condition Difference was investigated post-hoc by
generating a binary mask of the significant interaction results, and extracting the mean percent
signal change for each subject from contrasts of Distract > Baseline and Reappraisal> Baseline
from the mask for each subject. Less activity was found for younger adults than older adults
during the Reappraisal> Baseline contrasts, indicating that younger adults show greater
differences between strategy conditions in these regions.

!
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 59

+10 -2 -14 -26
+62 +46 +34 +22
+10 -2 -14 -26
+62 +46 +34 +22
A ! B !
Distract$>$Reappraise$
Reappraise$>$Distract$
younger$>$older$adults$
+10 -2 -14 -26
+62 +46 +34 +22
+10 -2 -14 -26
+62 +46 +34 +22
A ! B !
Distract$>$Reappraise$
Reappraise$>$Distract$
younger$>$older$adults$
+10 -2
-14 -26
+62 +46 +34 +22
+10 -2
-14 -26
+62 +46 +34 +22
A ! B !
Distract$>$Reappraise$
Reappraise$>$Distract$
younger$>$older$adults$
Figure 8. Activation for Reappraisal and Distraction Across Age Groups (A). Results from
traditional GLM analyses for younger and older adults separately for Reappraise > Distract
(red) and Distract > Reappraise (blue), p<0.05, z=2.3 cluster-thresholded, MNI coordinates are
reported along the z-dimension. The posterior medial cortex (PMC) and left Supramarginal
Gyrus are active for younger adults during Distraction>Reappraisal, but nothing survives in the
older adult contrast.

B.
A.
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 60

Table 1.
Demographics and Individual Measures
Older Adults Younger Adults
(n=12) (n=12)
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Age 21.9 (3.2) 69.5 (4.8)
Education (yrs) 15.5 (2.2) 16 (2)
CES-D 9 (6.2) 8.2 (8.4)
LN-SEQ 10 (2) 12.3 (2.5)
WTAR 43.8 (7) 44.8 (3.4)
DS-BACK 5.2 (1.2) 5.8 (1.1)
DS-FWD 6.7 (1.1) 7.3 (1.1)
ERQ-R 30 (10.2) 29.9 (5.1)
ERQ-D 11.7 (4.7) 13.6 (4)

Note: CES-D: Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, LN-
SEQ: Letter-Number Sequencing, WTAR- Wechsler Test of Adult Reading,
DS-FWD: Digit Span forwards, DS-BACK: Digit Span Backwards, ERQ-R:
Emotion Regulation Questionnaire- Reappraise subscore, ERQ-D: Emotion
Regulation Questionnaire- Distract subscore

Table 2.
Mean Post-Stimulus Intensity Ratings across Age Groups
Reappraise Distract
(n=12) (n=12)
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Older Adults 2.34 (.45) 2.44 (.44)
Younger Adults 2.23 (.54) 2.34 (.52)

DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 61

Table 3.
Regions Active for Older Adult Searchlight p<0.05
Region
MNI X MNI Y MNI Z Extent (Voxels) Extent (mm3)
Angular Gyrus 51 -52 32 10 80
Cingulate Gyrus, posterior -4 -49 20 109 872
Cingulate Gyrus, posterior 3 -47 25 164 1312
Cuneal Cortex -4 -82 29 91 728
Cuneal Cortex 3 -79 29 138 1104
Inferior Temporal Gyrus, temporooccipital 54 -52 -14 117 936
Intracalcarine -8 -77 9 160 1280
Intracalcarine 12 -74 8 13 104
Lateral Occipital, inferior -46 -76 -2 526 4208
Lateral Occipital, inferior 45 -76 -5 209 1672
Lateral Occipital, superior -29 -76 39 1691 13528
Lateral Occipital, superior 34 -73 38 1671 13368
Lingual Gyrus -5 -76 -3 185 1480
Lingual Gyrus 5 -77 -5 262 2096
Middle Frontal Gyrus -37 25 40 29 232
Middle Temporal Gyrus, temporooccipital 62 -47 -1 260 2080
Occipital Fusiform Gyrus -29 -73 -14 132 1056
Occipital Fusiform Gyrus 27 -75 -13 213 1704
Parahippocampal Gyrus, posterior -21 -34 -16 88 704
Precuneous Cortex -5 -65 34 563 4504
Precuneous Cortex 4 -65 32 565 4520
Superior Parietal Lobule 32 -49 58 54 432
Temporal Fusiform , posterior -28 -39 -20 21 168
Temporal Occipital Fusiform -33 -52 -18 157 1256
Temporal Occipital Fusiform 41 -51 -19 12 96

Note: Regions surviving the two-sample nonparametric t-test of age over MVPA searchlights, FWE-corrected p<0.05
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 62

Table 4.
Region MNI X MNI Y MNI Z Extent (Voxels) Extent (mm3) Hemisphere
Angular Gyrus 51 -52 26 91 728 Right
Angular Gyrus -53 -57 22 121 968 Left
Cingulate Gyrus, anterior 3 12 41 3 24 Right
Cingulate Gyrus, anterior -2 10 40 1 8 Left
Cingulate Gyrus, posterior 4 -46 26 266 2128 Right
Cingulate Gyrus, posterior -4 -48 27 163 1304 Left
Cuneal Cortex 4 -80 29 177 1416 Right
Cuneal Cortex -4 -81 30 82 656 Left
Frontal Orbital Cortex 39 27 -14 200 1600 Right
Frontal Pole 39 42 2 545 4360 Right
Frontal Pole -42 42 7 86 688 Left
Inferior Frontal Gyrus, opercularis 54 16 23 47 376 Right
Inferior Frontal Gyrus, opercularis -53 14 18 131 1048 Left
Inferior Frontal Gyrus, triangularis -53 26 18 2 16 Left
Inferior Temporal Gyrus, 53 -54 -15 158 1264 Right
Inferior Temporal Gyrus, -47 -56 -9 2 16 Left
Intracalcarine Cortex 11 -68 11 112 896 Right
Intracalcarine Cortex -7 -73 12 45 360 Left
Juxtapositional Lobule Cortex 1 -1 59 108 864 Right
Juxtapositional Lobule Cortex -4 0 59 189 1512 Left
Lateral Occipital Cortex, inferior 48 -73 -2 887 7096 Right
Lateral Occipital Cortex, inferior -46 -75 -2 812 6496 Left
Lateral Occipital Cortex, superior 32 -74 39 1756 14048 Right
Lateral Occipital Cortex, superior -31 -75 37 1959 15672 Left
Lingual Gyrus 23 -50 -9 129 1032 Right
Lingual Gyrus -22 -53 -8 100 800 Left
Middle Frontal Gyrus 46 22 38 248 1984 Right
Middle Frontal Gyrus -45 15 41 208 1664 Left
Middle Temporal Gyrus, posterior 65 -32 -3 18 144 Right
Middle Temporal Gyrus, posterior -60 -35 -4 50 400 Left
Middle Temporal Gyrus, 59 -51 2 226 1808 Right
Middle Temporal Gyrus, -58 -54 2 104 832 Left
Occipital Fusiform Gyrus 28 -74 -13 268 2144 Right
Occipital Fusiform Gyrus -28 -75 -14 229 1832 Left
Paracingulate Gyrus 4 17 44 133 1064 Right
Paracingulate Gyrus -4 17 44 97 776 Left
Parahippocampal Gyrus, posterior 26 -34 -15 12 96 Right
Parahippocampal Gyrus, posterior -25 -34 -18 45 360 Left
Postcentral Gyrus 40 -34 56 1 8 Right
Precentral Gyrus 53 4 37 184 1472 Right
Precentral Gyrus -53 1 34 473 3784 Left
Precuneous Cortex 5 -61 36 1261 10088 Right
Precuneous Cortex -5 -61 39 818 6544 Left
Superior Frontal Gyrus 8 16 62 73 584 Right
Superior Frontal Gyrus -8 17 61 206 1648 Left
Superior Parietal Lobule 35 -46 58 188 1504 Right
Superior Parietal Lobule -32 -49 56 47 376 Left
Superior Temporal Gyrus, posterior 62 -32 4 1 8 Right
Superior Temporal Gyrus, posterior -60 -35 5 86 688 Left
Supracalcarine Cortex 2 -77 16 5 40 Right
Supramarginal Gyrus, posterior 48 -38 52 1 8 Right
Supramarginal Gyrus, posterior -61 -47 21 16 128 Left
Temporal Fusiform Cortex, posterior 31 -34 -21 28 224 Right
Temporal Fusiform Cortex, posterior -30 -37 -20 74 592 Left
Temporal Occipital Fusiform Cortex 34 -50 -17 346 2768 Right
Temporal Occipital Fusiform Cortex -30 -53 -16 172 1376 Left
Temporal Pole 50 14 -14 69 552 Right
Note: Regions surviving the two-sample nonparametric t-test of age over MVPA searchlights, FWE-corrected p<0.0005
Regions Active for Younger Adult Searchlight p<0.0005
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 63

Region MNI X MNI Y MNI Z Extent (voxels) Extent (mm3) Hemisphere
Angular Gyrus 52 -52 28 72 288 Right
Angular Gyrus -46 -56 32 10 80 Left
Cingulate Gyrus, posterior division 0 -44 32 371 2968 Both
Cuneal Cortex 4 -80 28 308 1232 Right
Cuneal Cortex -4 -80 28 42 336 Left
Frontal Pole 34 50 26 3012 12048 Right
Frontal Pole -32 50 20 1042 8336 Left
Inferior Frontal Gyrus, pars opercularis 54 16 22 90 360 Right
Inferior Frontal Gyrus, pars opercularis -52 14 22 12 96 Left
Intracalcarine Cortex 10 -68 10 58 232 Right
Intracalcarine Cortex -4 -70 12 7 56 Left
Lateral Occipital Cortex, inferior 46 -74 -4 2214 8856 Right
Lateral Occipital Cortex, inferior -46 -72 2 252 2016 Left
Lateral Occipital Cortex, superior -28 -76 42 1239 9912 Left
Lateral Occipital Cortex, superior 30 -72 42 1107 8856 Right
Lingual Gyrus 20 -58 -10 362 1448 Right
Lingual Gyrus -18 -58 -8 105 840 Left
Middle Frontal Gyrus 4 -44 30 430 1720 Right
Middle Frontal Gyrus -44 18 40 123 984 Left
Middle Temporal Gyrus -56 -54 2 36 288 Left
Occipital Fusiform Gyrus 30 -82 -14 666 2664 Right
Occipital Fusiform Gyrus -28 -74 -14 186 1488 Left
Precentral Gyrus 34 -50 -18 460 1840 Right
Precentral Gyrus -50 -2 44 124 992 Left
Precuneous Cortex 2 -60 40 2210 17680 Both
Superior Frontal Gyrus 52 -52 28 260 1040 Right
Superior Frontal Gyrus -4 48 38 33 264 Left
Superior Parietal Lobule -30 -50 58 318 1272 Left
Superior Parietal Lobule 36 -46 58 67 536 Right
Superior Temporal Gyrus, posterior -66 -36 8 266 1064 Left
Superior Temporal Gyrus, posterior -66 -36 8 34 272 Left
Supracalcarine Cortex 44 25 44 50 200 Right
Supramarginal Gyrus, posterior -50 -46 48 218 872 Right
Supramarginal Gyrus, posterior -50 -46 48 15 120 Left
Temporal Occipital Fusiform Cortex 34 -50 -18 322 1288 Right
Temporal Occipital Fusiform Cortex -28 -56 -16 85 680 Left
Note: Regions surviving the two-sample nonparametric t-test of age over MVPA searchlights, FWE-corrected p<0.005
Table 5.
Regions Significantly More Active for Younger than Older Adults MVPA Searchlights p<0.005
Region MNI X MNI Y MNI Z Extent (Voxels) Extent (mm3) Hemisphere
Precuneous Cortex 4 -58 38 679 5432 Both
Cingulate Gyrus, posterior 0 -48 34 44 352 Both
Lateral Occipital, superior 0 -72 42 700 5600 Both
Most Predictive of Emotion Regulation Strategy for Younger than Older Adults
Note: Regions showing the largest age difference in distinguishing emotion regulation strategies. These
regions were more effective at distinguishing strategies for younger than older adults based on the
nonparametric t-test of age, FWE-corrected p<0.001
Table 6.
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 64

Region Z-statistic MNI X MNI Y MNI Z Hemisphere
Lateral Occipital, inferior 5.53 -42 -72 10 Left
Superior Frontal Gyrus 5.43 -6 56 32 Left
Inferior Frontal Gyrus, pars opercularis 5.32 60 22 18 Right
Lateral Occipital, superior 5.3 -42 -80 14 Left
Inferior Frontal Gyrus, pars opercularis 5.29 56 20 20 Right
Lateral Occipital, superior 5.27 -40 -88 12 Left
Table 7.
Regions active for GLM Reappraise > Distract, Both Age Groups
Note: Peak maxima are reported at the z=2.3, clusted-thresholded, p<0.05 level
Table 8.
Region Z-statistic MNI X MNI Y MNI Z Hemisphere
Precuneus Cortex 3.87 -6 -72 28 Left
Precuneus Cortex 3.8 -8 -68 30 Left
Precuneus Cortex 3.76 2 -56 70 Right
Precuneus Cortex 3.71 -6 -70 38 Left
Precuneus Cortex 3.68 8 -70 30 Right
Precuneus Cortex 3.67 -2 -76 48 Left
Medial Frontal Cortex 3.63 -14 48 -12 Left
Cingulate Gyrus, anterior 3.62 0 36 0 Left
Frontal Pole 3.43 -18 58 0 Left
Frontal Pole 3.38 30 60 -10 Right
Frontal Pole 3.35 26 56 -8 Right
Frontal Pole 3.29 20 50 -10 Right

Regions active for GLM Distract > Reappraise, Both Age Groups
Note: Peak maxima are reported at the z=2.3, clusted-thresholded, p<0.05 level
Regions Active in GLM Interaction of Age by Condition Difference (Reappraise > Distract, Distract > Reappraise)
Region Z-statistic MNI X MNI Y MNI Z Hemisphere
Cingulate Gyrus, posterior 4.28 0 -46 8 Both
Cingulate Gyrus, posterior 4.19 6 -42 40 Both
Precuneus Cortex, posterior 4.14 -12 -56 36 Both
Precuneus Cortex, posterior 4.08 -8 -62 48 Both
Precuneus Cortex, posterior 4.06 -12 -62 48 Both
Supramarginal gyrus, posterior 4.64 -48 -42 32 Left
Table 9.
Note: Peak maxima are reported at p<0.05 level, cluster-thresholded z=2.3
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 65

Region Z-statistic MNI X MNI Y MNI Z Hemisphere
Caudate 3.6 -12 4 8 Left
Frontal Orbital Cortex 4.3 -32 20 -28 Left
Frontal Pole 4.55 -4 58 36 Left
Frontal Pole 3.94 44 48 -22 Right
Inferior Frontal Gyrus, pars opercularis 4.33 56 20 22 Right
Inferior Frontal Gyrus, pars opercularis 4.31 58 22 18 Right
Inferior Frontal Gyrus, pars opercularis 3.74 48 8 16 Right
Inferior Frontal Gyrus, pars triangularis 3.92 44 28 12 Right
Inferior Frontal Gyrus, pars triangularis 3.63 40 30 8 Right
Lateral Occipital Cortex, inferior 4.4 -38 -70 -8 Left
Lateral Occipital Cortex, superior 4.01 52 -62 18 Right
Lateral Occipital Cortex, superior 3.85 28 -84 12 Right
Middle Frontal Gyrus 3.88 34 24 46 Right
Middle Frontal Gyrus 3.79 50 22 46 Right
Middle Frontal Gyrus 3.77 48 20 50 Right
Middle Frontal Gyrus 3.7 44 22 44 Right
Middle Frontal Gyrus 3.7 32 18 32 Right
Middle Frontal Gyrus 3.69 34 14 64 Right
Middle Temporal Gyrus 4 52 -56 2 Right
Occipital Fusiform Gyrus 4.15 28 -80 -4 Right
Occipital Pole 4.43 -40 -90 10 Left
Precentral Gyrus 3.76 58 16 32 Right
Superior Frontal Gyrus 4.51 -8 30 60 Left
Temporal Occipital Fusiform Cortex 4.37 38 -46 -16 Right
Temporal Pole 4.3 -30 24 -32 Left
Thalamus 3.74 -12 -20 10 Left
Thalamus 3.62 -6 -18 6 Left
Thalamus 3.51 -4 2 6 Left
Thalamus 3.5 -8 -18 10 Left
Thalamus 3.5 -14 -24 2 Left
Table 10.
Peak Regions for GLM Reappraise>Distract for Younger Adults
Note: Peak maxima are reported at p<0.05 level, cluster-thresholded z=2.3
Table 11.
Region Z-statistic MNI X MNI Y MNI Z Hemisphere
Frontal Pole 4 24 36 48 Right
Inferior Frontal Gyrus, pars triangularis 4.3 58 24 18 Right
Inferior Temporal Gyrus, anterior 3.48 -44 -8 -36 Left
Inferior Temporal Gyrus, anterior 3.36 -58 -4 -36 Left
Lateral Occipital, inferior 4.18 -46 -90 2 Left
Lateral Occipital, superior 5.1 -28 -68 50 Left
Lateral Occipital, superior 4.17 -34 -78 24 Left
Middle Frontal Gyrus 4.21 52 12 50 Right
Middle Frontal Gyrus 3.97 44 14 38 Right
Middle Temporal Gyrus, anterior 3.72 60 -6 -26 Right
Middle Temporal Gyrus, anterior 3.5 62 2 -20 Right
Middle Temporal Gyrus, anterior 3.47 66 2 -22 Right
Middle Temporal Gyrus, anterior 3.25 62 -6 -22 Right
Middle Temporal Gyrus, anterior 3.4 -60 -6 -30 Left
Middle Temporal Gyrus, anterior 3.31 -54 0 -30 Left
Middle Temporal Gyrus, anterior 3.29 -58 -8 -26 Left
Middle Temporal Gyrus, posterior 3.35 52 -12 -20 Right
Occipital Fusiform Gyrus 4.08 -10 -88 -16 Left
Occipital Pole 4.47 22 -94 2 Right
Occipital Pole 4.07 -38 -94 -2 Left
Precentral Gyrus 4.02 50 10 34 Right
Precentral Gyrus 3.98 44 8 30 Right
Temporal Fusiform Cortex, anterior 3.46 -34 -10 -32 Left
Temporal Pole 3.43 58 10 -24 Right
Regions active for GLM Reappraisal > Distract for Older Adults
Note: Peak maxima are reported at p<0.05 level, cluster-thresholded z=2.3
DIFFERENTIATION OF EMOTION REGULATION WITH AGE 66

Region Z-statistic MNI X MNI Y MNI Z Hemisphere
Cingulate Gyrus, posterior 4.28 0 -46 8 Right
Cingulate Gyrus, posterior 4.19 6 -42 40 Left
Frontal Pole 4.14 -12 -56 36 Left
Precuneus Cortex, posterior 4.08 -8 -62 48 Left
Precuneus Cortex, posterior 4.06 -12 -62 48 Left
Supramarginal gyrus, posterior 4.64 -48 -42 32 Left
Table 12.
Note: Peak maxima are reported at p<0.05 level, cluster-thresholded z=2.3
Peak Regions for GLM Distract > Reappraise for Younger Adults
Table 13.
Older Adults (N=12) Younger Adults (N=12) Type of Image
Fishing trip Self
Taking nature hike on an island Self
Fishing trip Self
Going out dancing Self
Doing water therapy in pool Self
In Kawaii swimming with turtles Self-Other
Thinking of their puppy Self-Other
Photosession with young man Self-Other
Shopping at the mall with grandchildren Self-Other
Visiting castle with grandchildren Self-Other
Picnic with husband Self-Other
Trip to Stonehenge with friend Self-Other
Attending rock concert Self
Being in the ocean, swimming Self
First time performing in a play Self
Surfing Self
Going to museum in Switzerland Self
Listening to friend give a speech Self-Other
Eating chocolate ice cream with friend Self-Other
Sitting on the grass with boyfriend Self-Other
Playing with dog Self-Other
Waking and being in bed with fiance Self-Other
Cuddling on couch with boyfriend Self-Other
Attenting Rennaissance fair with friend Self-Other
Positive Distraction Images Utilized for Each Age Group

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Aging and emotion regulation in the judgment of facial emotion

PDF

Influence of age and anxiety on recognition of facial expressions of emotion: exploring the role of attentional processes

PDF

Optimism when imagining the future in old age influences the positivity effect in memory

PDF

Emotional reactivity and memory biases in older and younger adults

PDF

The role of age, mood, and time- perspective on the interpretation of emotionally ambiguous information

PDF

Age differences in the effects of anxiety on selective attention: a test of the vigilance-avoidance hypothesis

PDF

Emotion, attention and cognitive aging: the effects of emotional arousal on subsequent visual processing

PDF

Value-based decision-making in complex choice: brain regions involved and implications of age

PDF

How emotional arousal influences memory and learning in younger and older adults

PDF

Reacting to the negative consequences of your decisions: an ATSS comparison of cognitive and affective reactions in older versus younger adults

PDF

Untreated hyperglycemia associated with tau pathology and worse cognitive performance in older adults

PDF

Spatial and temporal patterns of brain activity associated with emotions in music

PDF

Sources of stability and change in the trajectory of openness to experience across the lifespan

PDF

Brainstem structural integrity in the progression of Alzheimer's disease

PDF

Age differences in diffusivity in the locus coeruleus and its ascending noradrenergic tract

PDF

Impulsivity interferes with emotion regulation strategy prioritization in everyday life

PDF

How age-related changes in the locus coeruleus affect selective attention and memory

PDF

The role of blood pressure variability in cognitive decline, cerebrovascular disease and Alzheimer’s disease

PDF

Adolescent life stress and the cortisol awakening response: the moderating roles of emotion regulation, attachment, and gender

PDF

Indexing cerebrovascular resistance in cognitive decline and Alzheimer's disease

Asset Metadata

Creator Martins, Bruna Suemi (author)

Core Title Dedifferentiation of emotion regulation strategies in the aging brain: an MVPA investigation

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Psychology

Publication Date 10/31/2013

Defense Date 10/31/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag aging,dedifferentiation,distraction,emotion regulation,OAI-PMH Harvest,reappraisal

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Mather, Mara (committee chair), Gatz, Margaret (committee member), Kaplan, Jonas (committee member), Knight, Bob G. (committee member)

Creator Email brunamar@usc.edu,brunatastic@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-341961

Unique identifier UC11295936

Identifier etd-MartinsBru-2122.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-341961 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MartinsBru-2122.pdf

Dmrecord 341961

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Martins, Bruna Suemi

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA