Dynamic fMRI networks of emotion

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors endeavor to capture the dynamics of emotion-related brain networks. They employ slice-based fMRI combined with ICA on fMRI time series recorded while participants viewed a short movie clip. This approach allowed them to track the time course of four non-noise independent components at an effective 2s temporal resolution at the BOLD level. Notably, the authors report a temporal sequence from input to meaning, followed by response, and finally default mode networks, with significant overlap between stages. The use of ICA offers a data-driven method to identify large-scale networks involved in dynamic emotion processing. Overall, this paradigm and analytical strategy mark an important step forward in shifting affective neuroscience toward investigating temporal dynamics rather than relying solely on static network assessments

Strengths:

(1) One of the main advantages highlighted is the improved temporal resolution offered by slice-based fMRI. However, the manuscript does not clearly explain how this method achieves a higher effective resolution, especially since the results still show a 2s temporal resolution, comparable to conventional methods. Clarification on this point would help readers understand the true benefit of the approach.

(2) While combining ICA with task fMRI is an innovative approach to study the spatiotemporal dynamics of emotion processing, task fMRI typically relies on modeling the hemodynamic response (e.g., using FIR or IR models) to mitigate noise and collinearity across adjacent trials. The current analysis uses unmodeled BOLD time series, which might risk suffering from these issues.

(3) The study's claims about emotion dynamics are derived from fMRI data, which are inherently affected by the hemodynamic delay. This delay means that the observed time courses may differ substantially from those obtained through electrophysiology or MEG studies. A discussion on how these fMRI-derived dynamics relate to - or complement - is critical for the field to understand the emotion dynamics.

(4) Although using ICA to differentiate emotion elements is a convenient approach to tell a story, it may also be misleading. For instance, the observed delayed onset and peak latency of the 'response network' might imply that emotional responses occur much later than other stages, which contradicts many established emotion theories. Given the involvement of large-scale brain regions in this network, the underlying reasons for this delay could be very complex.

Concerns and suggestions:

However, I have several concerns regarding the specific presentation of temporal dynamics in the current manuscript and offer the following suggestions.

(1) One selling point of this work regarding the advantages of testing temporal dynamics is the application of slice-based fMRI, which, in theory, should improve the temporal resolution of the fMRI time course. Improving fMRI temporal resolution is critical for a research project on this topic. The authors present a detailed schematic figure (Figure 2) to help readers understand it. However, I have difficulty understanding the benefits of this method in terms of temporal resolution.

a) In Figure 2A, if we examine a specific voxel in slice 2, the slice acquisitions occur at 0.7s, 2.7s, and 4.7s, which implies a temporal resolution of 2s rather than 0.7s. I am unclear on how the temporal resolution could be 0.7s for this specific voxel. I would prefer that the authors clarify this point further, as it would benefit readers who are not familiar with this technology.

b) Even with the claim of an increased temporal resolution (0.7s), the actual data (Figure 3) still appears to have a 2s resolution. I wonder what specific benefit slice-based fMRI brings in terms of testing temporal dynamics, aside from correcting the temporal distortions that conventional fMRI exhibits.

(2) In task-fMRI, the hemodynamic response is usually estimated using a specific model (e.g., FIR, IR model; see Lindquist et al., 2009). These models are effective at reducing noise and collinearity across adjacent trials. The current method appears to be conducted on unmodeled BOLD time series.

a) I am wondering how the authors avoid the issues that are typically addressed by these HRF modeling approaches. For example, if we examine the baseline period (say, -4 to 0s relative to stimulus onset), the activation of most networks does not remain around zero, which could be due to delayed influences from the previous trial. This suggests that the current time course may not be completely accurate.

b) A related question: if the authors take the spatial map of a certain network and apply a modeling approach to estimate a time series within that network, would the results be similar to the current ICA time series?

(3) Human emotion should be inherently fast to ensure survival, as shown in many electrophysiology and MEG studies. For example, the dynamics of a fearful face can occur within 100ms in subcortical regions (Méndez-Bértolo et al., 2016), and general valence and arousal effects can occur as early as 200ms (e.g., Grootswagers et al., 2020; Bo et al., 2022). In contrast, the time-to-peak or onset timing in the BOLD time series spans a much larger time range due to the hemodynamic delay. fMRI findings indeed add spatial precision to our understanding of the temporal dynamics of emotion, but could the authors comment on how the current temporal dynamics supplement those electrophysiology studies that operate on much finer temporal scales?

(4) The response network shows activation as late as 15 to 20s, which is surprising. Could the authors discuss further why it takes so long for participants to generate an emotional response in the brain?

(5) Related to 4. In many theories, the emotion processing stages-including perception, valuation, and response-are usually considered iterative processes (e.g., Gross, 2015), especially in real-world scenarios. The advantage of the current paradigm is that it incorporates more dynamic elements of emotional stimuli and is closer to reality. Therefore, one might expect some degree of dynamic fluctuation within the tested brain networks to reflect those potential iterative processes (input, meaning, response). However, we still do not observe much brain dynamics in the data. In Figure 5, after the initial onset, most network activations remain sustained for an extended period of time. Does this suggest that emotion processing is less dynamic in the brain than we thought, or could it be related to limitations in temporal resolution? It could also be that the dynamics of each individual trial differ, and averaging them eliminates these variations. I would like to hear the authors' comments on this topic.

(6) The activation of the default mode network (DMN), although relatively late, is very interesting. Generally, one would expect a deactivation of this network during ongoing external stimulation. Could this suggest that participants are mind-wandering during the later portion of the task?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript examined the neural correlates of the temporal-spatial dynamics of emotional processing while participants were watching short movie clips (each 12.5 s long) from the movie "Forrest Gump". Participants not only watched each film clip, but also gave emotional responses, followed by a brief resting period. Employing fMRI to track the BOLD responses during these stages of emotional processing, the authors found four large-scale brain networks (labeled as IC0,1,2,4) were differentially involved in emotional processing. Overall, this work provides valuable information on the neurodynamics of emotional processing.

Strengths:

This work employs a naturalistic movie watching paradigm to elicit emotional experiences. The authors used a slice-based fMRI method to examine the temporal dynamics of BOLD responses. Compared to previous emotional research that uses static images, this work provides some new data and insights into how the brain supports emotional processing from a temporal dynamics view.

Weaknesses:

Some major conclusions are unwarranted and do not have relevant evidence. For example, the authors seemed to interpret some neuroimaging results to be related to emotion regulation. However, there were no explicit instructions about emotional regulation, and there was no evidence suggesting participants regulated their emotions. How to best interpret the corresponding results thus requires caution.

Relatedly, the authors argued that "In turn, our findings underscore the utility of examining temporal metrics to capture subtle nuances of emotional processing that may remain undetectable using standard static analyses." While this sentence makes sense and is reasonable, it remains unclear how the results here support this argument. In particular, there were only three emotional categories: sad, happy, and fear. These three emotional categories are highly different from each other. Thus, how exactly the temporal metrics captured the "subtle nuances of emotional processing" shall be further elaborated.

The writing also contained many claims about the study's clinical utility. However, the authors did not develop their reasoning nor elaborate on the clinical relevance. While examining emotional processing certainly could have clinical relevance, please unpack the argument and provide more information on how the results obtained here can be used in clinical settings.

Importantly, how are the temporal dynamics of BOLD responses and subjective feelings related? The authors showed that "the time-to-peak differences in IC2 ("response") align closely with response latency results, with sad trials showing faster response latencies and earlier peak times". Does this mean that people typically experience sad feelings faster than happy or fear? Yet this is inconsistent with ideas such that fear detection is often rapid, while sadness can be more sustained. Understandably, the study uses movie clips, which can be very different from previous work, mostly using static images (e.g., a fearful or a sad face). But the authors shall explicitly discuss what these temporal dynamics mean for subjective feelings.