Emotion theory – old beliefs and new realities mTOR inhibitor primary-process emotion approaches to the BrainMind are not well represented in modern psychology, psychiatry, or even neuroscience. The most widely acknowledged theory of emotional feelings remains the JamesLange conjecture (see above) that advanced the counterintuitive idea of life-challenging situations (ie, when inadvertently confronted by

a grizzly bear in the woods) resulting first in various bodily symptoms of autonomic arousal, and emotional experiences following only after bodily arousals are “read out” by higher cognitive processes. This has promoted the misleading belief that emotions are just a subset of cognitive Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical process. If one defines cognitive processes as neural handling of incoming sensory stimuli, a disciplined distinction

can be made between cognitive and primaryprocess emotional processes, with the former consisting of externally sourced information processing and the Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical latter being internal state-control processes, as done here. When one moves to higher levels of processing, secondary (learning), and tertiary processes (thought) levels Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical of analysis, cognitive and emotional issues do get more conflated. Another bias impeding progress is the fact that many psychologists believe that emotions arise not from brain evolution but from social-developmental learning based on primal gradients (dimensions) of arousal and valence.13 This “experimental convenience” – namely a convenient conceptual way Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical to study human emotions verbally – goes back to the 19th-century work of Wilhelm Wundt, but it has never been firmly connected to neuroscientific facts. Such dimensional approaches effectively focus on the diverse languages of emotion (ie, tertiary processes) Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical with no compelling strategy for unraveling primary-process emotional networks. To this day, abundant “battles” are waged between psychologists who espouse “basic emotion” views in human research and those who prefer dimensional views. The “basic

emotion” approaches posit a variety of distinct, inherited brain emotional systems; the “dimensional” views envision distinct emotions simply to reflect verbal labeling of locations in some type of continuous affective below space that is defined by two continuous axes: generalized forms of: (i) low and high arousal; and (ii) positive and negative valence. The study of primary-process brain mechanisms of emotions, best pursued in animal models, provides a bridge that can help settle such debates. A primaryprocess/basic emotion view may prevail in many subcortical regions, and constructivist/dimensional approaches may effectively parse higher emotional concepts as processed by the neocortex (Table I). In other words, such debates may simply reflect investigators working at different levels of control.