See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/8574262

Frontal EEG asymmetry, emotion, and psychopathology: The first, and

the next 25 years

Article  in  Biological Psychology · November 2004

DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2004.03.001 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
131 983

2 authors:

John J B Allen John P. Kline

The University of Arizona Private Practice
210 PUBLICATIONS   14,779 CITATIONS    59 PUBLICATIONS   1,677 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Standardized EEG processing View project

Neural Mechanisms involved in Emotion, Depression, and/or Anxiety View project

All content following this page was uploaded by John P. Kline on 07 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Biological Psychology 67 (2004) 1–5

Editorial
Frontal EEG asymmetry, emotion, and
psychopathology: the first, and the next 25 years

Over 25 years ago, at the annual meeting of the Society for Psychophysiological Research
in Madison, Wisconsin, in September of 1978, Richie Davidson presented a paper suggesting
that the experiences of positive and negative effect were associated with differential patterns
asymmetrical frontal brain electrical activity. The abstract of this presentation represented
the first published account of the use of frontal electroencephalographic (EEG) asymmetry
in emotional experience (Davidson et al., 1979), and there was a dearth of work on this topic
in the ensuing decade. How things have changed! Research on frontal EEG asymmetry and
emotion has enjoyed considerable popularity in recent years. The tabular review of this
literature in Coan and Allen (2004) reveals that after this initial paper in 1979, there were
five empirical papers from 1980–1985, 10 more papers by 1990, another 19 by 1995, an
additional 40 by 2000, and now 29 papers published or in press since 2000. Frontal EEG
asymmetries have been examined as a trait individual difference that has been found to
be related to other trait individual differences, that has been found to identify those with
depressive and anxious psychopathology and possibly those at risk for psychopathology,
and that has been found to predict subsequent emotional responses. Additionally, alterations
of frontal EEG asymmetry have been found in response to tasks or emotion manipulations.
In an era where functional neuroimaging methodologies, such as positron emission to-
mography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), have seen an expo-
nential increase in the study of emotion and psychopathology, one might question whether
there remains a role for frontal EEG asymmetry in the study of emotion, motivation, and
psychopathology. Aside from the obvious advantages of EEG as a measure that is less
invasive, less expensive, and more widely available than many neuroimaging modalities,
frontal EEG asymmetry has established—by virtue of the nearly 100 studies using this
measure—a sizable literature that embeds the measure in a network of psychological and
behavioral constructs, thus bestowing frontal EEG asymmetry with sizable construct va-
lidity as a measure of an underlying approach-related or withdrawal-related motivational
style (e.g. Davidson et al., 2000; Harmon-Jones, 2004), or as an index of potential risk
for emotion-related psychopathology (Coan and Allen, 2004). As such, frontal EEG asym-
metry has greater construct validity as a measure of this motivational style than does any
neuroimaging measure to date.
On the other hand, the evidence linking frontal EEG asymmetry to the activity of under-
lying neural systems involved in the experience, expression, and regulation of emotion is

0301-0511/$ – see front matter © 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2004.03.001
2 Editorial / Biological Psychology 67 (2004) 1–5

considerably lacking. When one reads the frontal EEG asymmetry literature, one might be
struck by the irony that this psychophysiological measure seems much more psychological
than physiological in terms of the inferences that can be drawn from the findings to date. As
one reads the papers in this special issue, it is apparent (Cacioppo, 2004) that they in large
part continue in this tradition of linking frontal EEG asymmetry to important psychological
constructs, including depression and related constructs (Jones et al., 2004; Minnix et al.,
2004; Nitschke et al., 2004; Tomarken et al., 2004) as well as states of anger or cogni-
tive dissonance (Harmon-Jones, 2004). As such, the psychological construct validity (see
Cacioppo, 2004; Hagemann, 2004) of frontal EEG asymmetry is bolstered, suggesting it
may have considerable utility in studies of motivation, emotion, and psychopathology, even
in the absence of strong links to activity in underlying neural structures.
If one wishes, however, to develop a theory of how neural systems give rise to emotional
experience, expression, and regulation, then studies that solely link EEG asymmetry to
psychological or behavioral measures will ultimately prove insufficient (Davidson, 2004).
A complete account of the constructs assessed by frontal EEG asymmetry must link frontal
EEG asymmetry to both psychological/behavioral constructs and also to neurophysiological
constructs. Hagemann (2004) argues EEG asymmetry can be better linked to underlying
neural activity using specific reference montages that highlight local activity, and Davidson
(2004) suggests the merit of measuring EEG in the context of functional neuroimaging
studies. Heeding such advice will bolster the neurophysiological construct validity of EEG
asymmetry (Cacioppo, 2004; Hagemann, 2004), and, moreover, identify neural systems
involved in emotion and psychopathology that may not generate electrical signatures which
would be detectable using a rather global and spatially imprecise measure like frontal EEG
asymmetry.
Optimally, such work will inform and help refine the psychological theories of the con-
structs assessed by frontal EEG asymmetry. By identifying brain structures and systems
involved in aspects of emotional experience, expression, or regulation, or those that may be
related to individual differences or psychopathology, research can shape the psychological
theory by drawing on what is known about such structures and systems (cf. Willingham
and Dunn, 2003). But one must also be cautious in this approach, as localization per se
is not necessarily informative, unless such localization efforts employ careful behavioral
designs, and take advantage of extant knowledge of the functional significance of neural
systems involved in emotion. Stated more provocatively, although brain activation is indeed
potentially highly informative, as an independent or—especially—mediating or interven-
ing variable brain activation is not often informative when treated as a criterion variable
(Coan, personal communication). Brain activations that differ between conditions, tasks, or
individuals constitute weak evidence for a neural substrate (Cacioppo et al., 2003). Sim-
ilarly, EEG asymmetry should not be mistaken for a substrate, a claim that has appeared
occasionally in this literature (Sutton and Davidson, 1997; Wiedemann et al., 1999).
Particularly challenging for EEG asymmetry research is the fact that a vast majority of
the studies involve assessing individual differences in resting activity across a relatively
long interval of several minutes, rather than tightly controlled experimental paradigms.
Under such conditions, it may be especially challenging to use PET or fMRI to find neu-
ral activity that is well localized in a consistent fashion across subjects, and inferring the
meaning of such activity may be additionally vexing. It is possible that EEG asymmetry
 Editorial / Biological Psychology 67 (2004) 1–5 3

may serve as a useful summary index of individual differences in the recruitment of un-
derlying neuronal systems by virtue of it being a measure with such coarse spatial and
temporal resolution, as it integrates information across systems and across time to provide
a summary index of an underlying propensity or affective style. It may therefore be the
case that establishing links between frontal EEG asymmetry and underlying neural systems
may not easily be accomplished using data obtained under relatively uncontrolled resting
conditions. The identification of such relationships may be enhanced, instead, by examin-
ing surface-recorded EEG and underlying neural activity in well-controlled state and task
manipulations.
As researchers continue to use measures of frontal EEG asymmetry, and as new re-
searchers come to use these measures, several important methodological issues are high-
lighted in this special issue (Allen et al., 2004; Hagemann, 2004) that may help provide some
greater standardization for this field, thus reducing the variation across studies in terms of
analysis and recording methods and procedures, which hopefully will promote a more sys-
tematic approach for the investigation of emotion, motivation, and psychopathology using
measures of frontal EEG asymmetry.
In this special issue readers will find integrative reviews of the work in this area. In
the first paper, Coan and Allen (2004) selectively review the nearly 100 studies in this
area, challenging researchers to think about the way in which frontal EEG asymmetry
may index factors that moderate, or mediate relationships with emotion, motivation, and
psychopathology. Harmon-Jones (2004) then addresses theoretical models of frontal EEG
asymmetry, and with an extensive series of clever studies from his laboratory, provides
evidence that favors a model that frontal EEG asymmetry taps motivational propensities
along a motivational dimension of approach and withdrawal.
Following these reviews are four empirical studies reporting new original research on de-
pression. In common among these papers is the finding that the relationship between frontal
EEG asymmetry and depression or risk for depression is not independent of the influence
of other important factors. Tomarken et al. (2004), with a highly valuable dataset comprised
of adolescents of depressed mothers, examine whether resting frontal EEG asymmetry may
serve as a marker of vulnerability for depression among adolescents, identifying also the
important role of socioeconomic status as a relevant factor in this relationship. Jones et al.
(2004) report that although infants of depressed mothers generally show relatively less left
frontal activity and more reactive temperaments, these relationships are not apparent if the
depressed mothers demonstrate a stable pattern of breastfeeding. Nitschke et al. (2004)
identified that features of frontal EEG activity preceding and during encoding of sad ma-
terial predict subsequent memory performance, but differently for subjects high or low in
depression. Whereas overall frontal power prior to encoding predicted memory performance
in low depressed controls, relatively greater right frontal activity during encoding of a sad
narrative predicted better memory performance among those with higher depression scores.
Finally, Minnix et al. (2004) report that the expected relationship between relatively less
left frontal activity depression was moderated by the extent to which subjects report they
engage in reassurance-seeking.
As research in this field moves from the first to the next 25 years, attention to method-
ological and interpretive details will be paramount. Research in this field had the luxury
in the early years of using limited montages, employing single (and possibly non-optimal)
4 Editorial / Biological Psychology 67 (2004) 1–5

reference schemes, and analyzing data using rather simple univariate statistical models.
Three papers in this special issue (Allen et al., 2004; Coan and Allen, 2004; Hagemann,
2004) challenge us to be more demanding researchers and discerning consumers of the lit-
erature on frontal EEG asymmetry, emotion, and psychopathology. The promise of frontal
EEG asymmetry for informing the study of emotion and psychopathology is apparent as
one reads this special issue. Yet the future of frontal EEG asymmetry research will bene-
fit from deliberately strategic use; such strategic use should further our understanding of
psychological phenomena—including emotional experience, expression, and regulation as
well as risk for psychopathology—or should serve as a bridge that can help identify the
links between social, behavioral, experiential, psychological, neuroanatomical, and cellular
levels of analysis (Anderson and Scott, 1999). There is sufficient work to be done using
measures of frontal EEG asymmetry to occupy scientists for at least another 25 years.
We wish to thank the authors whose work is featured in this issue, and also Bob Simons
for providing the idea for this special issue and entrusting us with its construction. We are
also indebted to the reviewers for their thoughtful critiques, especially to John Cacioppo and
Richie Davidson, who provided highly thoughtful commentaries at miserably short notice.
John J.B. Allen
(Guest Editor)
Department of Psychology
University of Arizona, P.O. Box 210068
Tucson, AZ 85721-0068, USA
E-mail address: jallen@u.arizona.edu (J.J.B. Allen)
John P. Kline
Department of Psychology
University of South Alabama, USA

References

Allen, J.J.B., Coan, J.A., Nazarian, M., 2004. Issues and assumptions on the road from raw signals to metrics of
frontal EEG asymmetry in emotion. Biological Psychology 67, 183–218.
Anderson, N.B., Scott, P.A., 1999. Making the case for psychophysiology during the era of molecular biology.
Psychophysiology 36, 1–13.
Cacioppo, J.T., Berntson, G.G., Lorig, T.S., Norris, C.J., Rickett, E., Nusbaum, H., 2003. Just because you’re
imaging the brain doesn’t mean you can stop using your head: A primer and set of first principles. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 85, 650–661.
Cacioppo, J.T., 2004. Feelings and emotions: Roles for electrophysiological markers. Biological Psychology 67,
235–243.
Coan, J.A. Allen, J.J.B., 2004. EEG Asymmetry as a moderator and mediator of emotion. Biological Psychology
67, 7–49.
Davidson, R.J., Schwartz, G.E., Saron, C., Bennett, J., Goleman, D.J., 1979. Frontal versus parietal EEG asymmetry
during positive and negative affect. Psychophysiology 16, 202–203.
Davidson, R.J., Jackson, D.C., Kalin, N.H., 2000. Emotion, plasticity, context, and regulation: perspectives from
affective neuroscience. Psychological Bulletin 126 (6), 890–909.
Davidson, R.J., 2004. What does the prefrontal cortex “do” in affect: Perspectives on frontal EEG asymmetry
research. Biological Psychology 67, 219–233.
 Editorial / Biological Psychology 67 (2004) 1–5 5

Hagemann, D., 2004. Individual differences in anterior EEG-asymmetry: Methodological problems and solutions.
Biological Psychology 67, 157–182.
Harmon-Jones, E., 2004. Contributions from research on anger and cognitive dissonance to understanding the
motivational functions of asymmetrical frontal brain activity. Biological Psychology 67, 51–76.
Jones, N.A., McFall, B.A., Diego, M.A., 2004. Patterns of brain electrical activity in infants of depressed mothers
who breastfeed and bottle feed: The mediating role of infant temperament. Biological Psychology 67, 103–124.
Minnix, J.A., Kline, J.P., Blackhart, G.C., Pettit, J.W., Perez, M., Joiner, T.E., 2004. Relative left frontal activity
is associated with increased depression in high reassurance-seekers. Biological Psychology 67, 145–155.
Nitschke, J.B., Heller, W., Etienne, M.A., Miller, G.A., 2004. Prefrontal cortex activity differentiates processes
affecting memory in depression. Biological Psychology 67, 125–143.
Sutton, S.K., Davidson, R.J., 1997. Prefrontal brain asymmetry: A biological substrate of the behavioral approach
and inhibition systems. Psychological Science 8, 204–210.
Tomarken, A.J., Dichter, G.S., Garber, J., Simien, C., 2004. Resting frontal brain activity: Linkages to maternal
depression and socioeconomic status among adolescents. Biological Psychology 67, 77–102.
Wiedemann, G., Pauli, P., Dengier, W., Lutzenberger, W., Birbaumer, N., Buchkremer, G., 1999. Frontal brain
asymmetry as a biological substrate of emotions in patients with panic disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry
56, 78–84.
Willingham, D.T., Dunn, E.W., 2003. What neuroimaging and brain localization can do, cannot do, and should
not do for social psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85, 662–671.

View publication stats