Task and Content Modulate Amygdala-Hippocampal Connectivity in Emotional Retrieval  Adam P.R. Smith, Klaas E. Stephan, Michael D. Rugg, Raymond J. Dolan  Neuron  Volume 49, Issue 4, Pages 631-638 (February 2006) DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2005.12.025 Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Effects of Memory Content and Task Requirements on Brain Activity The figure shows the results from a random effects analysis across all 16 subjects (p < 0.001, uncorrected). (A) shows contrasts of recollection of items encoded in negative versus neutral contexts; (B) depicts contrasts of activity associated with emotional versus nonemotional retrieval tasks. Activity peaks are highlighted for amygdala (Amy), hippocampus (Hpc), orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), middle frontal gyrus (MFG), anterior insula (Ins), hypothalamus (Hyp), and posterior cingulate cortex (PCC). Neuron 2006 49, 631-638DOI: (10.1016/j.neuron.2005.12.025) Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Dynamic Causal Model of the Neural Interactions in a Network Supporting Emotional Retrieval Processing The model incorporated visual fusiform cortex (Fus), hippocampus (Hpc), amygdala (Amy), and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC). This model proved to be the optimal model out of seven different models tested (see main text). The values shown alongside connections represent (1) the group mean of the individual maximum a posteriori (MAP) parameter estimates of the modulation by the associated experimental factor, averaged across the 16 subjects, and (2) the result of the second-level analysis for that parameter estimate (paired t test across all 16 subjects). These modulations reflect the influence of memory content (retrieval of items from negative versus neutral contexts) (dark gray) and behavioral context (emotional versus people retrieval task) (light gray). Neuron 2006 49, 631-638DOI: (10.1016/j.neuron.2005.12.025) Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Diagrammatic Representation of the Seven Competing Models that Were Evaluated by Bayesian Model Selection The optimal model is shown in the central red circle. For all other models, the average Bayes factor is given. This Bayes factor reflects the model evidence ratio of the optimal model and each alternative model, averaged across all 16 subjects (see main text). Comparing two models with identical evidence yields a Bayes factor of one. As shown by the figure, the Bayes factor was >7 in all cases, providing positive evidence for the optimality of the model selected. Neuron 2006 49, 631-638DOI: (10.1016/j.neuron.2005.12.025) Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions