Abstract
Recent studies have bolstered the important role of the cerebellum in high-level socio-affective functions. In particular, neuroscientific evidence shows that the posterior cerebellum is involved in social cognition and emotion processing, presumably through its involvement in temporal processing and in predicting the outcomes of social sequences. We used cerebellar transcranial random noise stimulation (ctRNS) targeting the posterior cerebellum to affect the performance of 32 healthy participants during an emotion discrimination task, including both static and dynamic facial expressions (i.e., transitioning from a static neutral image to a happy/sad emotion). ctRNS, compared to the sham condition, significantly reduced the participants’ accuracy to discriminate static sad facial expressions, but it increased participants’ accuracy to discriminate dynamic sad facial expressions. No effects emerged with happy faces. These findings may suggest the existence of two different circuits in the posterior cerebellum for the processing of negative emotional stimuli: a first-time-independent mechanism which can be selectively disrupted by ctRNS, and a second time-dependent mechanism of predictive "sequence detection" which can be selectively enhanced by ctRNS. This latter mechanism might be included among the cerebellar operational models constantly engaged in the rapid adjustment of social predictions based on dynamic behavioral information inherent to others’ actions. We speculate that it might be one of the basic principles underlying the understanding of other individuals’ social and emotional behaviors during interactions.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Facial emotional expressions are a primary form of nonverbal communication and play a critical role in human interactions [1], since the ability to accurately perceive and interpret them is essential for successful social communication [2, 3]. While the role of the cerebral cortex in facial emotion perception has been extensively investigated [1, 4,5,6,7,8,9,10], the contribution of the cerebellum to this process is comparatively less understood. However, recent lesion, neuroimaging, and neuromodulation studies have increasingly provided compelling evidence that the cerebellum—for more than a century thought to be exclusively involved in motor coordination and learning—is actually involved in high-level cognitive functions [11,12,13,14,15] including social cognition [11, 16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32] and emotion processing [33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51]. More specifically, a difference has been proposed between the anterior lobe of the cerebellum, more engaged in sensorimotor control, and the posterior lobe, more engaged in cognitive, social, and emotional functions [12, 14, 30, 31, 37, 44, 52]. Concerning the role of the cerebellum in emotion processing, most of the studies carried out so far have exploited emotion discrimination and recognition tasks in which static images (photographs) depicting facial emotional expressions are presented to patients/participants [16, 52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68]. Based on these findings, it is therefore conceivable that the cerebellum is involved in the perception of facial emotional expressions, especially in response to negative emotions (i.e., sadness, anger, and fear) and aversive stimuli [16, 36, 37, 41, 46, 52,53,54, 56, 58, 59, 62, 65, 67, 69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76]. In fact, neuroimaging evidence showed emotion-specific activations in the cerebellum (along with the posterior cingulate and fusiform gyrus) in response to negative, but not positive, facial emotions [67]. According to this view, posterior areas of the cerebellum would rapidly kick off a set of ancestral defense mechanisms, such as fight-or-flight motor reactions (in response to potentially dangerous stimuli coming from outside) which in turn involve more anterior cerebellar areas [34, 70, 73, 77, 78].
Although several operating mechanisms of the cerebellum are still not fully understood, it seems plausible to state that both the motor and the non-motor (i.e., cognitive/social/emotional) cerebellum work through operating principles that are analogous [13, 15, 79]. The recent view is that the cerebellum is continuously involved in two adaptive and interdependent functions: prediction and anticipation. More specifically, cerebellar operational models and circuits would detect and anticipate the presence of temporal and spatial patterns from physical cues, make accurate predictions of prospective outcomes on the basis of these cues, and prepare to respond accordingly [15, 23, 80,81,82,83,84,85,86]. Within this framework, it has been suggested that the operational mode of the cerebellum in prediction and anticipation processes—even beyond the motor domain—is a time-related “sequence detection” [15, 80, 82, 87,88,89,90,91]. The cerebellar automatic mechanism of prediction (i.e., generating expectations) and anticipation (i.e., preparing for future events) of sequences, as well as the rapid adjustment of such predictions based on dynamic environmental information, would be one of the leading processes underlying the understanding of other individuals’ behaviors and mental states during social interactions [18, 22, 23, 25, 88, 92,93,94]. Nevertheless, to date, no human study has explored the causal role of the cerebellum in this putative prediction/anticipation mechanism within the specific domain of facial emotion processing. One way to investigate this process in the field of emotions is by exploiting the presentation of dynamic emotional facial expressions, which have been gradually recognized as a more sensitive and ecologically valid stimulus compared to the static presentation of emotional faces [95]. In this regard, dynamic negative emotions, as opposed to positive emotions, have been shown to elicit activation patterns in the cerebellum (along with the left inferior frontal gyrus and the pars orbitalis [66]).
In recent years, the use of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques (e.g., transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial electrical stimulation) for studying cerebellar functions in non-motor domains (such as cognition, social behavior, and emotion) has substantially increased [25, 59, 60, 65, 75, 92, 96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105]. These techniques can help neuroscientists to provide causal links between cerebellar activity and behavior. In this study, we exploited cerebellar transcranial random-noise stimulation (ctRNS; i.e., a non-invasive technique of electrical brain stimulation, the usefulness of which has already been proven in several cognitive and emotional processes in the neocortex [106,107,108,109,110,111]) in order to causally verify the role of the cerebellum in predicting and anticipating sequences of facial emotional expressions changing over time. This specific stimulation technique can be applied either at low or high frequency with different effects on the target area of the brain, and cortical stimulation research showed that high-frequency tRNS led to excitatory effects [112]. Here, we used an emotion discrimination task in which participants were required to quickly respond to videos of faces that progressively evolved from a neutral to either a negative (sad) or a positive (happy) emotional expression [113]. Based on the above-mentioned evidence that the cerebellum would play a role in the processing of emotional expressions, especially for negative valence, and that its operational mechanism would include the ability to understand the timing and predict the outcomes of physical and social action sequences, we hypothesized that high-frequency ctRNS over the posterior cerebellum could enhance participants’ performance in a discrimination task of dynamic—especially negative—facial expressions of emotion.
Materials and Methods
Participants
Thirty-two participants took part in the study (16 females, mean age ± standard deviation: 24.56 ± 3.5 years). Handedness was assessed by using the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory [114, 115], according to which the handedness score ranges from − 100 (totally left-handed) to + 100 (totally right-handed): the mean handedness score was 46.97 (± 42.26) including four left-handed. All participants were free from any history of psychiatric or neurological disorders and gave written consent before taking part to the experiment. The whole procedure was carried out in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Psychology of the Department of Psychological, Health and Territorial Sciences—University “G. d’Annunzio” of Chieti-Pescara (protocol number: IRBP/22002).
ctRNS and General Procedure
High-frequency ctRNS was delivered by a battery-driven, constant current stimulator (DC-Stimulator, NeuroConn GmbH, Germany) through a pair of surface saline-soaked sponge electrodes, one measuring 5 cm × 5 cm and the other measuring 5 cm × 10 cm, kept firm by elastic bands. A random noise current was applied for 20 min with an intensity of 1.5 mA and with a 0 mA offset. Random frequencies ranged from 100 to 640 Hz (high frequency), according to safety guidelines, with a ramping period of 15 s both at the beginning and at the end of the stimulation.
All participants took part in two different stimulation sessions (ctRNS and sham), carried out on 2 different days separated by at least 24 h. The smallest electrode was centered on the cerebellar cortex (the center of the electrode was placed 2 cm below the inion [25]), and the largest electrode was placed on the left or right shoulder (balanced between participants). In the sham condition, the current was turned off after 15 s, and the order of the two sessions was counterbalanced across participants. The task started 5 min after the beginning of the stimulation and was carried out online (see Fig. 1). The experiment was run using E-Prime 3.0 software (Psychology Software Tools, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA) on a Windows personal computer. Participants were required to comfortably sit in a quiet room, at about 57 cm from the computer screen.
At the end of each session, participants were required to complete a questionnaire investigating their sensation concerning stimulation [116]. None of the participants reported feeling strong pain or burning sensations, a minority of them (16%) reported feeling mild pain and burning sensations in both sessions.
Stimuli and Procedure
The task comprised a static and a dynamic condition. The static condition used color photographs of face images (resolution of 2.835 × 3.543 pixels) from the FACES database [117]. Photos of 12 males and 12 females displaying happy and sad facial expressions were selected. The images were also flipped horizontally, so the final set of stimuli comprised 96 static faces. In the dynamic condition, stimuli consisted of video clips (frame rate of 30 fps and resolution of 384 × 480 pixels) obtained by morphing faces selected from the Dynamic FACES database [113]. The videos started with the presentation of a neutral face that progressively evolved into a happy or sad expression (see Fig. 2 C). Each video had a duration of two seconds: morphing took place in the first second and was followed by one second in which the expression was static. Videos from the same actors of the static session (12 males and 12 females) were selected. The videos were also flipped horizontally, so the final set of stimuli comprised 96 video clips.
In each stimulation session (ctRNS and sham), participants performed both the static and the dynamic condition, in a counterbalanced order. In each condition, 96 trials were presented (either images or video alternatively). In each trial, a black fixation cross was presented for 500 ms, and it was followed by either an image or a video presented in the center of the screen for a maximum of 2 s or until participants gave the response. Then, after the presentation of an interstimulus interval (ISI) lasting 1 s, the next trial started. Participants were asked to classify each stimulus as happy or sad, stopping the presentation of the image or interrupting the morphing video as soon as they recognized the emotion displayed (see Fig. 2 A and B). Responses were provided by pressing two different keys with the right hand, corresponding to the happy and the sad expression, respectively (the association between key and response was balanced across participants).
Results
Data analysis was based on the proportion of correct responses (accuracy) in categorizing the emotional expressions (calculated by dividing the number of correct responses by the total number of stimuli and multiplying by 100%) and on the response times (RTs) in milliseconds for correct responses (calculated from the begin of the presentation of the static or dynamic stimulus). Responses with RTs values deviating by more than two standard deviations from the subject’s mean for any condition (static and dynamic) were excluded. Accuracy and RTs were used as the dependent variables in two repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVA) with the stimulus (static, dynamic), emotion (happy, sad), and session (ctRNS, sham) as within-subjects factors. All statistical analyses were computed by means of Statistica 8.0 software (StatSoft. Inc., Tulsa, USA) and when needed, the Duncan test was used for post-hoc comparisons (p < 0.05).
As regards accuracy, the main effect of emotion was significant (F1,31 = 7.61, p = 0.009, ηp2 = 0.20), showing a higher accuracy for happy (92.04 ± 0.79) than for sad faces (90.26 ± 0.51). The interaction among stimulus, emotion, and session was significant (F1,31 = 6.07, p = 0.022, ηp2 = 0.16; Fig. 3), and post hoc comparisons revealed that in the static condition, sad expression was categorized worse during ctRNS than during sham (p < 0.001); however, in the dynamic condition sad expression was categorized better during ctRNS than during sham (p = 0.045). No difference was observed for happy expression in both static and dynamic conditions.
As regards RTs, the main effect of the stimulus was significant (F1,31 = 129.50, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.81), with higher RTs for dynamic (725.96 ± 21.91 ms) than for static stimuli (559.89 ± 21.89 ms). The main effect of emotion was also significant (F1,31 = 61.59, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.67), with higher RTs for sad (658.51 ± 21.36 ms) than for happy expression (627.34 ± 20.11 ms). The interaction between stimulus and emotion (F1,31 = 12.26, p = 0.001, ηp2 = 0.28) showed that the happy expression was categorized faster than the sad expression, in both static (p < 0.001) and dynamic conditions (p < 0.001).
Discussion
In this study, we investigated the causal role of the posterior cerebellum in categorizing positive (happy) and negative (sad) facial emotions, presented as static and—importantly—as dynamic stimuli. This is the first neuromodulation study making use of this type of stimuli in cerebellar research, although a number of neuroimaging studies have included the cerebellum among the structures involved in the neural pathways for the perception of dynamic facial emotions [52, 95, 118,119,120,121]. In addition, for the sake of comparison with previous cerebellar studies on emotion processing, we still used a set of static emotional images of facial expressions. Our hypothesis was that high-frequency ctRNS over the posterior cerebellum would enhance participants’ performance in emotion discrimination, especially in response to dynamic negative (i.e., sad) facial expressions.
First of all, results unsurprisingly showed that participants performed better (in terms of higher accuracy and lower RTs) for happy than for sad facial expressions. In this regard, it has been suggested that the teeth exposure during a happy smile produces a circumscribed contrasting luminance in the mouth area capable of capturing the observer’s attention and thus facilitating the detection of happiness as shown both through discrimination and visual search tasks [122,123,124].
More interestingly, results showed a triple significant interaction revealing an inverse pattern of participants’ performance accuracy in response to negative static vs. dynamic stimuli during ctRNS. In fact, while on the one hand ctRNS compared to the sham condition significantly reduced participants’ accuracy to discriminate static sad facial expressions, on the other hand, ctRNS significantly increased participants’ accuracy to discriminate dynamic sad facial expressions. As no difference was found in response to the positive (i.e., happy) stimuli, our findings primarily confirm the idea that the posterior cerebellum is selectively involved in a circuit for the discrimination of the static facial cues deriving from negative emotional expressions [16, 36, 37, 41, 46, 52,53,54, 56, 58, 59, 62, 65, 67, 69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76] and that this circuit can be altered by high-frequency ctRNS applied over the posterior cerebellum. As suggested by previous studies, this might be due to the greater biological and evolutionary salience of negative emotions, along with the crucial role of the cerebellum in the consequent preparation of a rapid motor response [34, 70, 73, 77, 78]. However, since our results showed that ctRNS selectively and oppositely altered participants’ performance accuracy for static—with a decrease—and dynamic—with an increase—sad facial expressions, we speculate that two different circuits exist for the processing of negative emotional stimuli in the cerebellum: a first time-independent mechanism which can be selectively disrupted by ctRNS, and a second time-dependent mechanism of predictive “sequence detection” which can be selectively enhanced by ctRNS. It has to be noted that our speculations must be considered with caution due to some possible limitations of the study. First, based on previous studies (e.g., [25]), we used the inion as a reference for the placement of the cephalic electrode, but only the use of neuronavigation could ensure that the same target area is stimulated in all participants. In this regard, it can be pointed out that the size of the electrodes used in the tES protocol is quite large to avoid the need for a high spatial resolution, but this issue can be at the basis of inter-individual differences in the targeted cerebellar area. However, the electrode montage we used on the posterior cerebellum provides us with a reasonable certainty that we modulated cerebellar activity in the posterior vermal and paravermal areas, as well as the adjacent regions of the posterior cerebellar hemispheres. Second, the literature about ctRNS is not so wide to conclusively support either the facilitatory or inhibitory effects of this stimulation set-up on the cerebellar cortex. Nevertheless, the use of random noise stimulation should ensure that stochastic resonance effects occur, so that we can be confident about the overall excitatory induction of the targeted area [125]. Even in this regard, however, neuroimaging studies investigating the direct effect of hf-tRNS applied on the cerebellum are needed to directly corroborate its effect. Furthermore, even if, at a pure statistical level, the three-way interaction revealed a participants’ lower accuracy in the discrimination of static sad expressions and a higher accuracy in the discrimination of dynamic sad expressions (with respect to the corresponding sham conditions), the mean accuracies of the sample show that this latter difference seems to be attributable to a decreased accuracy for the dynamic sad stimuli in sham condition, more than to an enhancement of the performance during the active stimulation. This means that if we consider only the sham sessions, the participants’ accuracy is lowest in the dynamic-sad condition than in all the other static and dynamic conditions. This difference among the sham sessions can suggest that sadness is not so simple to detect as the happiness expression. As specified above, in fact, this is in line with the evidence of a facilitation in the detection of smiling faces, possibly due to teeth exposure [122,123,124]. Importantly, the contrasting patterns obtained for static vs. dynamic sad expressions are in line with the specific role of ctRNS in sadness perception. Finally, it should be noted that dynamic emotions should have increased participants’ perceived realism of facial expressions, because dynamic compared to static stimuli facilitate the processing of complex and changing cues that constantly occur during real social interactions [95, 126,127,128,129].
Conclusion
This study showed that a cerebellar automatic mechanism of predicting and anticipating temporal sequences exists not only for the prediction of social action sequences, but also for predicting the behavioral outcome of emotional sequences (i.e., dynamic facial expressions). Since this ability can be differentially altered by ctRNS applied over the posterior cerebellum for static and dynamic stimuli, we can conclude that it could be a different mechanism compared to that investigated so far by most of the studies carried out in the emotional domain [16, 36, 37, 41, 46, 52,53,54, 56, 58, 59, 62, 65, 67, 69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76]. In fact, it is possible that this mechanism is part of the already-known cerebellar operational models constantly engaged in the rapid adjustment of social predictions based on dynamic environmental information, which are presumably at the root of the understanding of other individuals’ social and emotional behaviors during interactions [18, 22, 23, 25, 92,93,94]. In our opinion, these findings support the recent idea of the cerebellum as the central coordinator of the structures involved in the “predictive brain” [80, 91]. Finally, the present study showed that ctRNS is a useful technique for altering the activity of the cerebellum, although further studies are needed to better understand the dimensions and directionality of such alterations, as well as the existence of such a putative mechanism of predictive “sequence detection,” specifically involved in the emotional processing of negative facial expressions.
Data Availability
Data and materials of this study are available from the corresponding author, G.M., upon reasonable request.
References
Blair RJR. Facial expressions, their communicatory functions and neuro-cognitive substrates. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003;358:561–72.
Jack RE, Schyns PG. Toward a social psychophysics of face communication. Annu Rev Psychol. 2017;68:269–97.
Ekman P, Friesen WV. Unmasking the face: a guide to recognizing emotions from facial clues. Los Altos, CA: ISHK; 2003.
Adolphs R. Recognizing emotion from facial expressions: psychological and neurological mechanisms. Behav Cogn Neurosci Rev. 2002;1:21–62.
Ferretti V, Papaleo F. Understanding others: emotion recognition in humans and other animals. Genes Brain Behav. 2019;18:e12544.
Martinez AM. Visual perception of facial expressions of emotion. Curr Opin Psychol. 2017;17:27–33.
Rapcsak SZ. Face recognition. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2019;19:41.
Prete G, Croce P, Zappasodi F, Tommasi L, Capotosto P. Exploring brain activity for positive and negative emotions by means of EEG microstates. Sci Rep. 2022;12:3404.
Prete G, D’Anselmo A, Tommasi L. A neural signature of exposure to masked faces after 18 months of COVID-19. Neuropsychologia. 2022;174:108334.
Wyczesany M, Capotosto P, Zappasodi F, Prete G. Hemispheric asymmetries and emotions: evidence from effective connectivity. Neuropsychologia. 2018;121:98–105.
Klein AP, Ulmer JL, Quinet SA, Mathews V, Mark LP. Nonmotor functions of the cerebellum: an introduction. Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37:1005–9.
Schmahmann JD. The cerebellum and cognition. Neurosci Lett. 2019;688:62–75.
Schmahmann JD. An emerging concept. The cerebellar contribution to higher function. Arch Neurol. 1991;48:1178–87.
Schmahmann JD, Sherman JC. The cerebellar cognitive affective syndrome. Brain. 1998;121(Pt 4):561–79.
Sokolov AA, Miall RC, Ivry RB. The cerebellum: adaptive prediction for movement and cognition. Trends Cogn Sci. 2017;21:313–32.
Hoche F, Guell X, Sherman JC, Vangel MG, Schmahmann JD. Cerebellar contribution to social cognition. Cerebellum. 2016;15:732–43.
Olson I, Hoffman L, Jobson K, Popal H, Wang Y. Development of social cognition: the essential role of the cerebellum. PsyArXiv. 2023. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/efd4y.
Van Overwalle F, Manto M, Cattaneo Z, Clausi S, Ferrari C, Gabrieli JDE, et al. Consensus paper: cerebellum and social cognition. Cerebellum. 2020;19:833–68.
Sokolov AA. The cerebellum in social cognition. Front Cell Neurosci. 2018;12:145.
Clausi S, Olivito G, Lupo M, Siciliano L, Bozzali M, Leggio M. The cerebellar predictions for social interactions: theory of mind abilities in patients with degenerative cerebellar atrophy. Front Cell Neurosci. 2019;12:510.
Leggio M, Olivito G. Chapter 5 - Topography of the cerebellum in relation to social brain regions and emotions. Handb Clin Neurol. 2018;154:71–84.
Van Overwalle F, Baeken C, Campanella S, Crunelle CL, Heleven E, Kornreich C, et al. The role of the posterior cerebellum in dysfunctional social sequencing. Cerebellum. 2022;21:1123–34.
Van Overwalle F, Pu M, Ma Q, Li M, Haihambo N, Baetens K, et al. The involvement of the posterior cerebellum in reconstructing and predicting social action sequences. Cerebellum. 2021;21:733–41.
Sokolovsky N, Cook A, Hunt H, Giunti P, Cipolotti L. A preliminary characterisation of cognition and social cognition in spinocerebellar ataxia types 2, 1, and 7. Behav Neurol. 2010;23:17–29.
Oldrati V, Ferrari E, Butti N, Cattaneo Z, Borgatti R, Urgesi C, et al. How social is the cerebellum? Exploring the effects of cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation on the prediction of social and physical events. Brain Struct Funct. 2021;226:671–84.
Olivito G, Siciliano L, Leggio M. Theory of Mind and Cerebellum. In: Gruol DL, Koibuchi N, Manto M, Molinari M, Schmahmann JD, Shen Y, editors. Essentials of cerebellum and cerebellar disorders: a primer for graduate students. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2023. p. 379–85.
Guell X, Gabrieli JDE, Schmahmann JD. Triple representation of language, working memory, social and emotion processing in the cerebellum: convergent evidence from task and seed-based resting-state fMRI analyses in a single large cohort. Neuroimage. 2018;172:437–49.
Keightley ML, Chiew KS, Anderson JAE, Grady CL. Neural correlates of recognition memory for emotional faces and scenes. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2011;6:24–37.
Timmann D, Drepper J, Frings M, Maschke M, Richter S, Gerwig M, et al. The human cerebellum contributes to motor, emotional and cognitive associative learning. A review. Cortex. 2010;46:845–57.
Stoodley CJ, Schmahmann JD. Evidence for topographic organization in the cerebellum of motor control versus cognitive and affective processing. Cortex. 2010;46:831–44.
Stoodley C, Schmahmann J. Functional topography in the human cerebellum: a meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Neuroimage. 2009;44:489–501.
Strick PL, Dum RP, Fiez JA. Cerebellum and nonmotor function. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2009;32:413–34.
Adamaszek M, Kirkby KC. The neurophysiology of the cerebellum in emotion. In: Adamaszek M, Manto M, Schutter DJLG, editors. The emotional cerebellum. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 87–108.
Adamaszek M, D’Agata F, Ferrucci R, Habas C, Keulen S, Kirkby KC, et al. Consensus paper: cerebellum and emotion. Cerebellum. 2017;16:552–76.
Adamaszek M, Manto M, Schutter DJLG. Current and future perspectives of the cerebellum in affective neuroscience. In: Adamaszek M, Manto M, Schutter DJLG, editors. The emotional cerebellum. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 303–13.
An S, Han X, Wu B, Shi Z, Marks M, Wang S, et al. Neural activation in response to the two sides of emotion. Neurosci Lett. 2018;684:140–4.
Baumann O, Mattingley JB. Functional topography of primary emotion processing in the human cerebellum. Neuroimage. 2012;61:805–11.
Baumann O, Mattingley JB. Cerebellum and emotion processing. In: Adamaszek M, Manto M, Schutter DJLG, editors. The emotional cerebellum. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 25–39.
Beuriat P-A, Cohen-Zimerman S, Smith GNL, Krueger F, Gordon B, Grafman J. A new insight on the role of the cerebellum for executive functions and emotion processing in adults. Front Neurol. 2020;11:593490.
Clausi S, Iacobacci C, Lupo M, Olivito G, Molinari M, Leggio M. The role of the cerebellum in unconscious and conscious processing of emotions: a review. Appl Sci. 2017;7:521.
D’Agata F, Orsi L. Cerebellum and emotion recognition. In: Adamaszek M, Manto M, Schutter DJLG, editors. The emotional cerebellum. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 41–51.
Flace P, Quartarone A, Colangelo G, Milardi D, Cacciola A, Rizzo G, et al. The neglected cerebello-limbic pathways and neuropsychological features of the cerebellum in emotion. Cerebellum. 2018;17:243–6.
Habas C. Topography of emotions in cerebellum as appraised by functional imaging. In: Adamaszek M, Manto M, Schutter DJLG, editors. The emotional cerebellum. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 77–86.
Schmahmann JD. Chapter 6 - Emotional disorders and the cerebellum: neurobiological substrates, neuropsychiatry, and therapeutic implications. Handb Clin Neurol. 2021;83:109–54.
Pierce JE, Thomasson M, Voruz P, Selosse G, Péron J. Explicit and implicit emotion processing in the cerebellum: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Cerebellum. 2022.
Pierce JE, Péron J. The basal ganglia and the cerebellum in human emotion. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2020;15:599–613.
Laricchiuta D, Picerni E, Cutuli D, Petrosini L. Cerebellum, embodied emotions, and psychological traits. In: Adamaszek M, Manto M, Schutter DJLG, editors. The emotional cerebellum. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 255–69.
Mark M, Pakusch J, Ernst TM, Timmann D. Cerebellum and emotion memory. In: Adamaszek M, Manto M, Schutter DJLG, editors. The emotional cerebellum. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 53–73.
Fusar-Poli P, Placentino A, Carletti F, Landi P, Allen P, Surguladze S, et al. Functional atlas of emotional faces processing: a voxel-based meta-analysis of 105 functional magnetic resonance imaging studies. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2009;34:418–32.
Uono S, Sato W, Kochiyama T, Sawada R, Kubota Y, Yoshimura S, et al. Neural substrates of the ability to recognize facial expressions: a voxel-based morphometry study. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2017;12:487–95.
Likowski K, Muehlberger A, Gerdes A, Wieser M, Pauli P, Weyers P. Facial mimicry and the mirror neuron system: simultaneous acquisition of facial electromyography and functional magnetic resonance imaging. Front Human Neurosci. 2012;6:214.
Dureux A, Zanini A, Everling S. Perception of dynamic facial expressions activates a cortico-subcortico-cerebellar network in marmosets. bioRxiv. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.08.02.502528.
Adamaszek M, Kirkby KC, D’Agata F, Olbrich S, Langner S, Steele C, et al. Neural correlates of impaired emotional face recognition in cerebellar lesions. Brain Res. 2015;1613:1–12.
Chen X, Lei S, Wang Y, Zhang K, Wang D, Lai W, et al. Cerebellar contribution in emotional faces based on a sample of sleep-deprived healthy young men. Research Square. 2022. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2047232/v1.
Ferrari C, Oldrati V, Gallucci M, Vecchi T, Cattaneo Z. The role of the cerebellum in explicit and incidental processing of facial emotional expressions: a study with transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neuroimage. 2018;169:256–64.
Ferrari C, Fiori F, Suchan B, Plow EB, Cattaneo Z. TMS over the posterior cerebellum modulates motor cortical excitability in response to facial emotional expressions. Eur J Neurosci. 2021;53:1029–39.
Mothersill O, Morris DW, Kelly S, Rose EJ, Bokde A, Reilly R, et al. Altered medial prefrontal activity during dynamic face processing in schizophrenia spectrum patients. Schizophr Res. 2014;157:225–30.
Nakamura A, Yomogida Y, Ota M, Matsuo J, Ishida I, Hidese S, et al. The cerebellum as a moderator of negative bias of facial expression processing in depressive patients. J Affect Disord Rep. 2022;7:100295.
Ruggiero F, Dini M, Cortese F, Vergari M, Nigro M, Poletti B, et al. Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the cerebellum enhances sadness recognition in Parkinson’s disease patients: a pilot study. Cerebellum. 2022;21:234–43.
Schutter DJLG, Enter D, Hoppenbrouwers SS. High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation to the cerebellum and implicit processing of happy facial expressions. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2009;34:60–5.
Styliadis C, Leung R, Özcan S, Moulton EA, Pang E, Taylor MJ, et al. Atypical spatiotemporal activation of cerebellar lobules during emotional face processing in adolescents with autism. Hum Brain Mapp. 2021;42:2099–114.
Adamaszek M, D’Agata F, Kirkby KC, Trenner MU, Sehm B, Steele CJ, et al. Impairment of emotional facial expression and prosody discrimination due to ischemic cerebellar lesions. Cerebellum. 2014;13:338–45.
Adamaszek M, D’Agata F, Steele CJ, Sehm B, Schoppe C, Strecker K, et al. Comparison of visual and auditory emotion recognition in patients with cerebellar and Parkinson´s disease. Soc Neurosci. 2019;14:195–207.
D’Agata F, Caroppo P, Baudino B, Caglio M, Croce M, Bergui M, et al. The recognition of facial emotions in spinocerebellar ataxia patients. Cerebellum. 2011;10:600–10.
Ferrucci R, Giannicola G, Rosa M, Fumagalli M, Boggio PS, Hallett M, et al. Cerebellum and processing of negative facial emotions: cerebellar transcranial DC stimulation specifically enhances the emotional recognition of facial anger and sadness. Cogn Emot. 2012;26:786–99.
Krautheim JT, Steines M, Dannlowski U, Neziroğlu G, Acosta H, Sommer J, et al. Emotion specific neural activation for the production and perception of facial expressions. Cortex. 2020;127:17–28.
Park J-Y, Gu B-M, Kang D-H, Shin Y-W, Choi C-H, Lee J-M, et al. Integration of cross-modal emotional information in the human brain: an fMRI study. Cortex. 2010;46:161–9.
van den Berg NS, Huitema RB, Spikman JM, Luijckx G-J, de Haan EHF. Impairments in emotion recognition and risk-taking behavior after isolated, cerebellar stroke. Cerebellum. 2020;19:419–25.
Ferrari C, Ciricugno A, Urgesi C, Cattaneo Z. Cerebellar contribution to emotional body language perception: a TMS study. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2022;17:81–90.
Moulton EA, Elman I, Pendse G, Schmahmann J, Becerra L, Borsook D. Aversion-related circuitry in the cerebellum: responses to noxious heat and unpleasant images. J Neurosci. 2011;31:3795–804.
Lupo M, Troisi E, Chiricozzi FR, Clausi S, Molinari M, Leggio M. Inability to process negative emotions in cerebellar damage: a functional transcranial doppler sonographic study. Cerebellum. 2015;14:663–9.
Schraa-Tam CKL, Rietdijk WJR, Verbeke WJMI, Dietvorst RC, van den Berg WE, Bagozzi RP, et al. fMRI activities in the emotional cerebellum: a preference for negative stimuli and goal-directed behavior. Cerebellum. 2012;11:233–45.
Terpou BA, Densmore M, Thome J, Frewen P, McKinnon MC, Lanius RA. The innate alarm system and subliminal threat presentation in posttraumatic stress disorder: neuroimaging of the midbrain and cerebellum. Chronic Stress (Thousand Oaks). 2019;3:2470547018821496.
Thomasson M, Ceravolo L, Corradi-Dell’Acqua C, Mantelli A, Saj A, Assal F, et al. Dysfunctional cerebello-cerebral network associated with vocal emotion recognition impairments. Cereb Cortex Commun. 2023;4:tgad002.
Cattaneo Z, Ferrari C, Ciricugno A, Heleven E, Schutter DJLG, Manto M, et al. New horizons on non-invasive brain stimulation of the social and affective cerebellum. Cerebellum. 2022;21:482–96.
Klaus J, Schutter DJLG. Functional topography of anger and aggression in the human cerebellum. Neuroimage. 2021;226:117582.
Lanius RA, Rabellino D, Boyd JE, Harricharan S, Frewen PA, McKinnon MC. The innate alarm system in PTSD: conscious and subconscious processing of threat. Curr Opin Psychol. 2017;14:109–15.
Buades-Rotger M, Beyer F, Krämer UM. Avoidant responses to interpersonal provocation are associated with increased amygdala and decreased mentalizing network activity. eNeuro. 2017;4:ENEURO.0337-16.2017.
Guell X, Schmahmann JD, Gabrieli JD, Ghosh SS. Functional gradients of the cerebellum. Elife. 2018;7:e36652.
Leggio M, Molinari M. Cerebellar sequencing: a trick for predicting the future. Cerebellum. 2015;14:35–8.
Tanaka H, Ishikawa T, Kakei S. Neural evidence of the cerebellum as a state predictor. Cerebellum. 2019;18:349–71.
Siman-Tov T, Granot RY, Shany O, Singer N, Hendler T, Gordon CR. Is there a prediction network? Meta-analytic evidence for a cortical-subcortical network likely subserving prediction. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2019;105:262–75.
Miall RC, Weir DJ, Wolpert DM, Stein JF. Is the cerebellum a smith predictor? J Mot Behav. 1993;25:203–16.
Roth MJ, Synofzik M, Lindner A. The cerebellum optimizes perceptual predictions about external sensory events. Curr Biol. 2013;23:930–5.
Ghajar J, Ivry RB. Cognitive and neurobiological research consortium. The predictive brain state: timing deficiency in traumatic brain injury? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22:217–27.
Casiraghi L, Alahmadi AAS, Monteverdi A, Palesi F, Castellazzi G, Savini G, et al. I See your effort: force-related bold effects in an extended action execution–observation network involving the cerebellum. Cereb Cortex. 2019;29:1351–68.
Bareš M, Apps R, Avanzino L, Breska A, D’Angelo E, Filip P, et al. Consensus paper: decoding the contributions of the cerebellum as a time machine. From Neurons to Clinical Applications Cerebellum. 2019;18:266–86.
Baumann O, Borra RJ, Bower JM, Cullen KE, Habas C, Ivry RB, et al. Consensus paper: the role of the cerebellum in perceptual processes. Cerebellum. 2015;14:197–220.
Molinari M, Chiricozzi FR, Clausi S, Tedesco AM, De Lisa M, Leggio MG. Cerebellum and detection of sequences, from perception to cognition. Cerebellum. 2008;7:611–5.
Perciavalle V, Apps R, Bracha V, Delgado-García JM, Gibson AR, Leggio M, et al. Consensus paper: current views on the role of cerebellar interpositus nucleus in movement control and emotion. Cerebellum. 2013;12:738–57.
Gatti D, Rinaldi L, Ferreri L, Vecchi T. The human cerebellum as a hub of the predictive brain. Brain Sci. 2021;11:1492.
Ma Q, Pu M, Li M, Haihambo N, Baetens K, Heleven E, et al. Can transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the cerebellum improve implicit social and cognitive sequence learning? Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2023;23:100355.
Van Overwalle F, Manto M, Leggio M, Delgado-García JM. The sequencing process generated by the cerebellum crucially contributes to social interactions. Med Hypotheses. 2019;128:33–42.
Van Overwalle F, Van de Steen F, van Dun K, Heleven E. Connectivity between the cerebrum and cerebellum during social and non-social sequencing using dynamic causal modelling. Neuroimage. 2020;206:116326.
Zinchenko O, Yaple ZA, Arsalidou M. Brain responses to dynamic facial expressions: a normative meta-analysis. Front Hum Neurosci. 2018;12:227.
Batsikadze G, Rezaee Z, Chang D-I, Gerwig M, Herlitze S, Dutta A, et al. Effects of cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation on cerebellar-brain inhibition in humans: a systematic evaluation. Brain Stimul. 2019;12:1177–86.
Block HJ, Celnik P. Can cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation become a valuable neurorehabilitation intervention? Expert Rev Neurother. 2012;12:1275–7.
Clausi S, Lupo M, Funghi G, Mammone A, Leggio M. Cerebellum and mental state recognition: a transcranial direct current stimulation study in healthy subjects. Research Square. 2022. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1734553/v1.
van Dun K, Bodranghien F, Manto M, Mariën P. Targeting the cerebellum by noninvasive neurostimulation: a review. Cerebellum. 2017;16:695–741.
Schutter DJLG, van Honk J. The cerebellum in emotion regulation: a repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Cerebellum. 2009;8:28–34.
Wessel MJ, Zimerman M, Timmermann JE, Heise KF, Gerloff C, Hummel FC. Enhancing consolidation of a new temporal motor skill by cerebellar noninvasive stimulation. Cereb Cortex. 2016;26:1660–7.
Ponce GV, Klaus J, Schutter DJLG. A brief history of cerebellar neurostimulation. Cerebellum. 2022;21:715–30.
Tomlinson SP, Davis NJ, Bracewell RM. Brain stimulation studies of non-motor cerebellar function: a systematic review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013;37:766–89.
Grimaldi G, Argyropoulos GP, Bastian A, Cortes M, Davis NJ, Edwards DJ, et al. Cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation (ctDCS): a novel approach to understanding cerebellar function in health and disease. Neuroscientist. 2016;22:83–97.
Klaus J, Schutter DJLG. Non-invasive brain stimulation of the cerebellum in emotion. In: Adamaszek M, Manto M, Schutter DJLG, editors. The emotional cerebellum. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 109–21.
Prete G, Laeng B, Tommasi L. Transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) over prefrontal cortex does not influence the evaluation of facial emotions. Soc Neurosci. 2019;14:676–80.
Prete G, Malatesta G, Tommasi L. Facial gender and hemispheric asymmetries: a hf-tRNS study. Brain Stimulation: Basic, Transl, Clin Res Neuromodulation. 2017;10:1145–7.
Prete G, Lucafò C, Malatesta G, Tommasi L. The causal involvement of the right supramarginal gyrus in the subjective experience of time: a hf-tRNS study. Behav Brain Res. 2021;404:113157.
Prete G, D’Anselmo A, Tommasi L, Brancucci A. Modulation of the dichotic right ear advantage during bilateral but not unilateral transcranial random noise stimulation. Brain Cogn. 2018;123:81–8.
Prete G, D’Anselmo A, Brancucci A, Tommasi L. Unilateral hf-tRNS over the temporal cortex does not influence pleasantness of musical chords. Appl Acoust. 2019;154:135–7.
Prete G, D’Anselmo A, Tommasi L, Brancucci A. Modulation of illusory auditory perception by transcranial electrical stimulation. Front Neurosci. 2017;11:351.
Terney D, Chaieb L, Moliadze V, Antal A, Paulus W. Increasing human brain excitability by transcranial high-frequency random noise stimulation. J Neurosci. 2008;28:14147–55.
Holland CAC, Ebner NC, Lin T, Samanez-Larkin GR. Emotion identification across adulthood using the dynamic FACES database of emotional expressions in younger, middle aged, and older adults. Cogn Emot. 2019;33:245–57.
Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia. 1971;9:97–113.
Salmaso D, Longoni AM. Problems in the assessment of hand preference. Cortex. 1985;21:533–49.
Fertonani A, Ferrari C, Miniussi C. What do you feel if I apply transcranial electric stimulation? Safety, sensations and secondary induced effects. Clin Neurophysiol. 2015;126:2181–8.
Ebner NC, Riediger M, Lindenberger U. FACES—a database of facial expressions in young, middle-aged, and older women and men: development and validation. Behav Res Methods. 2010;42:351–62.
Sato W, Kochiyama T, Uono S, Sawada R, Kubota Y, Yoshimura S, et al. Widespread and lateralized social brain activity for processing dynamic facial expressions. Hum Brain Mapp. 2019;40:3753–68.
Leslie KR, Johnson-Frey SH, Grafton ST. Functional imaging of face and hand imitation: towards a motor theory of empathy. Neuroimage. 2004;21:601–7.
Kilts CD, Egan G, Gideon DA, Ely TD, Hoffman JM. Dissociable neural pathways are involved in the recognition of emotion in static and dynamic facial expressions. Neuroimage. 2003;18:156–68.
Van Der Gaag C, Minderaa RB, Keysers C. Facial expressions: what the mirror neuron system can and cannot tell us. Soc Neurosci. 2007;2:179–222.
Calvo MG, Nummenmaa L. Detection of emotional faces: salient physical features guide effective visual search. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2008;137:471–94.
Malatesta G, Manippa V, Tommasi L. Crying the blues: the configural processing of infant face emotions and its association with postural biases. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2022;84:1403–10.
Becker DV, Anderson US, Mortensen CR, Neufeld SL, Neel R. The face in the crowd effect unconfounded: happy faces, not angry faces, are more efficiently detected in single- and multiple-target visual search tasks. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2011;140:637–59.
Moss F, Ward LM, Sannita WG. Stochastic resonance and sensory information processing: a tutorial and review of application. Clin Neurophysiol. 2004;115:267–81.
Jack RE, Garrod OGB, Schyns PG. Dynamic facial expressions of emotion transmit an evolving hierarchy of signals over time. Curr Biol. 2014;24:187–92.
Krumhuber EG, Skora LI, Hill HCH, Lander K. The role of facial movements in emotion recognition. Nat Rev Psychol. 2023;2:283–96.
Escobar BE, Hong SW. Temporal dynamics of positive and negative facial expression processing. J Vis. 2022;22:3786.
Arsalidou M, Morris D, Taylor MJ. Converging evidence for the advantage of dynamic facial expressions. Brain Topogr. 2011;24:149–63.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi G. D'Annunzio Chieti Pescara within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
G.M., A.D’A., and L.T. designed the research. G.M., A.D'A., G.P., C.L., and L.F. conducted the experiment. G.M., A.D'A., G.P., C.L., and L.F. performed the analysis. G.M. and A.D'A. wrote the manuscript and prepared the figures. G.P., C.L., L.F., and L.T. edited the manuscript. L.T. managed and supervised the entire project. All authors approved of the submitted version.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Psychology of the Department of Psychological, Health, and Territorial Sciences—University “G. d’Annunzio” of Chieti-Pescara (protocol number: IRBP/22002). All participants gave written consent before taking part to the experiment and declared to be free from any history of psychiatric or neurological disorders.
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Malatesta, G., D’Anselmo, A., Prete, G. et al. The Predictive Role of the Posterior Cerebellum in the Processing of Dynamic Emotions. Cerebellum 23, 545–553 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12311-023-01574-w
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12311-023-01574-w