doi:10.

1093/scan/nss032

SCAN (2013) 8, 546 ^555

Neuroimaging self-esteem: a fMRI study of individual

differences in women
Paul A. Frewen,1,2,3 Erica Lundberg,1 Melanie Brimson-Theberge,1 and Jean Theberge1,4,5,6,7
1

Department of Psychiatry, 2Department of Psychology, 3Graduate Program in Neuroscience, 4Medical Biophysics, 5Medical Imaging,
Western University, London, ON N6A3K7, Canada 6Department of Medical Imaging, St. Josephs Health Care, and 7Imaging division,
Lawson Health Research Institute, London, ON N6A4V2, Canada
Although neuroimaging studies strongly implicate the medial prefrontal cortex (ventral and dorsal), cingulate gyrus (anterior and posterior), precuneus
and temporoparietal cortex in mediating self-referential processing (SRP), little is known about the neural bases mediating individual differences in
valenced SRP, that is, processes intrinsic to self-esteem. This study investigated the neural correlates of experimentally engendered valenced SRP via
the VisualVerbal Self-Other Referential Processing Task in 20 women with fMRI. Participants viewed pictures of themselves or unknown other women
during separate trials while covertly rehearsing I am or She is, followed by reading valenced trait adjectives, thus variably associating the self/other
with positivity/negativity. Response within dorsal and ventral medial prefrontal cortex, cingulate cortex and left temporoparietal cortex varied with
individual differences in both pre-task rated self-descriptiveness of the words, as well as task-induced affective responses. Results are discussed as they
relate to a social cognitive and affective neuroscience view of self-esteem.

Keywords: self-referential processing; implicit social cognition; self-esteem

INTRODUCTION
Trait self-esteem, or the tendency to evaluate oneself positively rather
than negatively, is a robust predictor of mental health and well-being
(Baumeister et al., 2003). Neuroimaging studies strongly implicate the
medial prefrontal cortex (ventral and dorsal), cingulate gyrus (anterior
and posterior), precuneus and temporoparietal cortex (reviews by Qin
and Northoff, 2011; Qin et al., 2012a; van der Meer et al., 2010) in
mediating our ability to consciously reflect about ourselves, that is,
self-referential processing (SRP; Northoff et al., 2006). However,
little is known about the neural bases mediating individual differences
in valenced SRP, that is, why most people tend to think about themselves positively, whereas others regard themselves negatively, cognitive
and affective processes that are intrinsic to self-esteem.
Previous studies investigating valenced SRP measured neural response
while healthy participants explicitly judged the self-descriptiveness of
trait adjectives (e.g. liked vs disliked, success vs failure) (Fossati
et al., 2003; Moran et al., 2006; Yoshimura et al., 2009) or self-relevance
of valenced pictures (Phan et al., 2004; Lemogne et al., 2011), tasks not
unlike completing a self-esteem questionnaire within the scanner.
However, healthy individuals typically endorse positive stimuli (e.g. the
words liked, success) as more self-descriptive than negative stimuli
(e.g. disliked, failure) (Mezulis et al., 2004), confounding valence
with self-descriptiveness, and rendering these designs less sensitive to
detecting neural processes mediating negatively valenced SRP.
Limitations inherent to the use of direct survey-based measures of SRP
also include susceptibility to self-presentational biases and the likelihood
that not all valenced self-representations are fully accessible to conscious
reflection (e.g. Gawronski, 2009). To circumvent these concerns, priming
methodologies are increasingly used in experimental social psychology as
indirect measures of associations between valence and self-representation
(reviews by Buhrmester et al., 2011; Zeigler-Hill and Jordan, 2010).

Received 1 February 2012; Accepted 2 March 2012

Advance Access publication 7 March 2012
This research was supported by a New Investigator Fellowship to P.A.F. from the Ontario Mental Health
Foundation.
Correspondence should be addressed to Paul Frewen, PhD, C.Psych, Western University, University Hospital
(Room A10-222), London, ON, Canada N6A 5N1. E-mail: [email protected].

However, no previous studies have utilized these methods in order to

assess the neural processes mediating valenced SRP (for a study examining implicit SRP of stimuli that were not overtly valenced, however, see
Moran et al., 2009).
The present study addressed the above limits of past literature by
directly comparing the neural correlates of valenced SRP with valenced
other-referential processing (ORP) using a priming methodology.
Specifically, to obviate the effect of the self-positivity bias, we previously designed a VisualVerbal Self-Other Referential Processing Task
(VV-SORP-T; see Figure 1) that directly engenders valenced SRP and
ORP (Frewen and Lundberg, 2012). The VV-SORP-T requires participants to covertly rehearse the words I am or He/She is when presented with either their own or another persons picture and then read
positive or negative words, thereby experimentally engendering an
association between the self/other and positivity/negativity on different
trials (e.g. I am . . . disliked). The encoded representation (e.g. I
am . . . disliked) may or may not match individuals internal
self-representations (e.g. I am . . . liked) as determined by individual
differences in trait self-esteem. Participants monitor and report their
affective response to the task, the outcome of which we further interpret as partly reflecting the match between the task-induced encoded
representation and internal representations. Specifically, matching
negative self-representations (e.g. I am . . . disliked) are more likely
to engender negative affect and matching positive self-representations
(e.g. I am . . . liked) are more likely to engender positive affect. The
impact of the task on cognitive processing is also measured indirectly
via response time (RT) providing a conjoint passive button-pressing
requirement. We previously demonstrated in young adults that the
VV-SORP-T is sensitive to individual differences in valenced SRP
such that individuals with lower explicit self-esteem (as indexed by
the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; Rosenberg, 1965) are more likely to
experience negative affect during negative SRP, less likely to experience
positive affect during positive SRP, and evidence slower RT particularly during negative SRP (Frewen and Lundberg, 2012).
In the present fMRI study we investigated the neural correlates of
cognitive and affective processes relating to individual differences in
self-esteem by examining variability in the BOLD response to the
VV-SORP-T in 20 women. Consistent with previous research, we

The Author (2012). Published by Oxford University Press. For Permissions, please email: [email protected]
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits unrestricted
non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Neuroimaging self-esteem

SCAN (2013)

547

Fig. 1 Illustration of one block of the VV-SORP-T. The individual shown in the photograph is the second author. Participants posed for their own photographs in neutral expression as for a passport application.
Photographs of strangers (other-condition) were taken from the NimStim set (Tottenham et al., 2009) and matched to the participant as closely as possible for the following attributes: ethnicity, hair colour and
hair length. Participants viewed the photographs and silently rehearsed I am (for the self) or She is (for the other), and then silently read the words, thus associating the self/other with positivity/negativity on
different trials.

expected relatively few differences between valenced SRP and valenced

ORP at the group level (Yoshimura et al., 2009). However, we
hypothesized that individual differences in valenced adjective endorsement, and affective responses to the VV-SORP-T, would predict
between-person variation in the BOLD response within regions of
interest including within the medial prefrontal cortex, cingulate
gyrus, temporoparietal cortex and amygdala.
METHODS
Participants
Twenty women varying from young to middle adulthood (1852 years,
M age 27.80, s.d. 8.33) recruited by advertisement from the general
community took part in this study. Participants ethnic status was
distributed as follows: EuropeanCaucasian (n 12, 60%), East
Indian (n 3, 15%), Asian (n 2, 10%), African (n 2, 10%) and
Middle Eastern (n 1, 5%). As a group, participants reported normative levels of trait self-esteem [Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg,
1965): M 22.61, s.d. 6.01, Range 1330] and self-critical thinking
[Cognitive Distortion ScaleSelf-Criticism subscale (Briere, 2000);
M 14.22, s.d. 6.25, Range 833]. Current or past psychiatric history, head injury with loss of consciousness and left-handedness were
study exclusion criteria as assessed by structured clinical interviews.
VV-SORP-T
The VV-SORP-T involved three components: (i) completion of a
paper-and-pencil survey asking about the descriptiveness of negative
and positive traits for the self vs others (completed outside scanning),
(ii) completion of an experimental task while undergoing fMRI and
(iii) a post-task rating questionnaire asking about affective responses
(completed outside scanning). The instructions given for the
VV-SORP-T are reported verbatim in supplementary data to our
prior report (Frewen and Lundberg, 2012).

Approximately 2 weeks prior to scanning, within a battery of related

questionnaires, participants rated for each of 10 positive and 10 negative words how much each word describes (i) how you think about
yourself, and describes (ii) how you think about other people, in general on 11-point (010) scales anchored by Not at all (0),
Moderately (5) and Completely (10). The adjective list was the
same as that used in Frewen and Lundberg (2012), originally based
on that used in Frewen et al. (2011), and covered social (e.g. loved,
rejected) and achievement-related (e.g. successful, incompetent)
themes. We conceptualize such scores as indicative of trait self-esteem
and consistent with that assumption adjective endorsement scores
correlated r 0.73 with Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale scores in our
prior study (Frewen and Lundberg, 2012). We did not purposely
match the negative and positive word sets we used for frequency of
general use as this would have violated natural usage within the English
language (Loumann et al., 2012), nor did we seek to equate the word
sets for salience as this would also be contrary to norms
(e.g. Baumeister et al., 2001). Nevertheless, post hoc comparisons
revealed the word sets to be statistically comparable in terms of
length in letters, frequency of use within the English language relative
Hyperspace Analogue of Language (HAL) norms (Lund and Burgess,
1996), as well as normed mean reaction time in lexical decision and
naming, all as investigated and compiled within the English Lexicon
Project (Balota et al., 2007; number of letters, P 0.24; normed
frequency of use, P 0.42; log-frequency of use, P 0.69; RT in lexical
decision, P 0.23; RT in naming, P 0.27). Furthermore, no differences were observed in arousal ratings relative to the Affective Norms
for English Words (Bradley and Lang, 1999) for the subset of the words
we used that are contained therein (n 12 of 20; P 0.27).
Figure 1 illustrates how the experimental component of the
VV-SORP-T was conducted. Participants photographs were taken in
neutral expression (instructions were to pose as if for a passport
photograph) using a standard-use electronic camera (4.1 megapixels)

548

SCAN (2013)

against an off-white office wall. Photographs were then standardized in

order to match in essential respects those used in the development of
the NimStim set of facial expressions (Tottenham et al., 2009). The
latter were used as pictures for a comparison other (i.e. a female was
selected from the NimStim set for each study participant, matched as
closely as possible for ethnicity, hair colour and hair length). Before
beginning the VV-SORP-T participants were habituated to the photographs for 610 s (as desired) in order to reduce their novelty, with the
other instructed to be regarded as a typical person they might meet in
their day-to-day life but presently do not know personally. This
manipulation was intended to limit error associated with responding
to specific persons as has been used in previous fMRI studies (e.g.
individual differences in how one regards former American President
George Bush; Kelley et al., 2002).
Instructions underscored that completing the VV-SORP-T would
require participants to do three things: 1) internally rehearse statements and read words, 2) press response buttons on a keypad, and 3)
all the while pay close attention to how you are feeling throughout the
different parts of the task. Participants were instructed to view a fixation cross (presented for 12 s in between task-blocks) until they were
presented with the word SELF or OTHER (for 3 s) signalling which
of the respective pictures they were about to see. Upon seeing their
own or the other persons photograph (also presented for 3 s), they
silently rehearsed to themselves I am or She is, respectively, and then
pressed a keypad button with either their index or middle finger
(counter-balanced). Participants were then presented with a single
positive or negative word for 3 s, asked to silently read the word and
then pressed another keypad button with their other finger. Four
additional pictures and words were then presented following the
same picture-then-word rotation, with the identical picture displayed
in all cases, and the words being of common valence. Therefore the
stimulus presentations were blocked in terms of the conditions
Reference (Self vs Other, i.e. photographs) and Valence (words), creating four trial types: self-negative (S-N), self-positive (S-P),
other-negative (O-N) and other-positive (O-P). Participants were
not instructed that they should try to press the buttons as fast as
possible as is often done in social cognition experiments. In contrast,
participants were instructed only to press the buttons so that we can
assess afterwards whether you are paying attention to and completing
the task. This passive orientation was intended to focus attention
towards introspection and interoception with participants reminded
repeatedly of the importance of paying close attention to how you are
feeling throughout the different parts of the task.
While undergoing FMRI, participants were presented with
eight-blocks in each of three 6-min runs in which the self and other
photographs were presented in combination with two negative and
two positive word lists. The order of the eight blocks within runs
was fully randomized within and across participants. A full 6-min
practice run was also completed outside of the scanner in an office
setting 30 min before scanning in order to normalize participants to
the task.
Immediately after completing the experimental task component and
exiting the scanner, participants were asked open-ended and percentage rating-scale questions about their response to the four experimental conditions (S-N, S-P, O-N, O-P). The percentage rating-scale asked
participants to rate from 0 (Not at all) to 100% (Strongly), with 50%
indicating Moderately, . . . how much you felt certain specific feelings
in response to each picture and word type combination. Ratings were
provided for the following five negative affective states: Anger, Sad,
Anxiety-Fear, Disgust, Bad About Self, and for two positive affective states: Happy and Good about Self. As previously noted we
conceptualize affective responses to the task as providing an additional
measure of relevance to individual differences in self-esteem-related

P. A. Frewen et al.
processes. Specifically, our prior study observed that individuals with
lower trait self-esteem reported experiencing greater negative affect
during S-N trials, and lesser positive affect during S-P trials (Frewen
and Lundberg, 2012). Results for quantitative ratings collected from
the present sample are presented herein and open-ended comments are
included as Supplementary Table S1.
Procedure
All procedures were approved by the health sciences research ethics
board of Western University in London, Ontario, Canada. As noted
previously, participants were assessed for study inclusion criteria and
completed a short questionnaire battery including the adjective rating
component of the VV-SORP-T 2 weeks prior to scanning.
Participants completed a single-block practice version of the experimental component of the VV-SORP-T in an office setting 30 min
prior to fMRI scanning, and three blocks of the experimental component of the VV-SORP-T while undergoing fMRI. Participants then
rated their affective response to the VV-SORP-T immediately
post-scan. The entire experiment took 75 min to complete.
Imaging took place at the Robarts Research Institute in London,
Ontario, Canada. All imaging data were collected using a 3.0 Tesla
whole-body MRI scanner (Magnetom Tim Trio, Siemens Medical
Solutions, Erlangen, Germany) with the manufacturers 32-channel
phased array head coil. Orthogonal scout images were collected and used
to prescribe a tri-dimensional T1-weighted anatomical image of the whole
head with 1 mm isotropic resolution (MP-RAGE, TR/TE/TI 2300/2.98/
900 ms, flip angle 98, FOV (x, y, z) 256  240  192 mm, acc.
factor 4, total acq. time 3 min 12 s). The anatomical volume was
used to determine the angle of the transverse plane passing through both
the anterior and posterior commeasures mid-sagittaly and as the source
image for inter-individual spatial normalization. A set of 64 contiguous,
2 mm thick imaging planes for BOLD fMRI were prescribed parallel to the
ACPC plane and positioned to ensure coverage of the top of the brain.
BOLD fMRI images were acquired with the manufacturers standard
gradient echo EPI pulse sequence (single-shot blipped EPI) using an interleaved slice acquisition order and tri-dimensional prospective acquisition
correction (3D-PACE). EPI volumes were acquired with 2 mm isotropic
resolution and the following parameters: FOV 192  192 mm, 94  94
matrix, TR/TE 3000/20 ms, flip angle 908, 64 slices, 178 measurements.
Before completing the VV-SORP-T while undergoing fMRI a resting-state
functional scan of each participants brain was also acquired, to be
described elsewhere.
Data preparation and statistical analysis
Across blocks and runs for each of the four experimental conditions
(S-N, S-P, O-N, O-P), VV-SORP-T survey scores were summed, and
button-press RT and affect ratings were averaged. The effect of experimental condition on each of these variables was examined by ANOVA
with results reported in Table 1.
Analyses of the BOLD signal were conducted via SPM8 (Welcome
Department of Imaging Neuroscience, University College, London,
UK). Standard preprocessing was conducted within SPM8, with volumes realigned to the first functional image acquired (unidirectional
movements were <4 mm from origin in all cases), normalized to a
common EPI template [rendering 2 mm3 voxels in accordance with
the coordinate system of the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI)],
and data smoothed across 8 mm (FWHM). A canonical haemodynamic response function was modelled as a response to each
stimulus in individual participants (first-level), with group-averaged
results evaluated as random effects (second-level). The BOLD response
observed during each of the four task trials relative to between-block
fixation was examined via the general linear model. Planned contrasts

Neuroimaging self-esteem

SCAN (2013)

549

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and paired comparisons between conditions of the VV-SORP-T

Survey
NA
PA
RT

S-N

S-P

O-N

O-P

S-N vs S-P

M (s.d.)

M (s.d.)

M (s.d.)

M (s.d.)

d0

d0

d0

d0

3.95
15.53
14.34
758

86.79
2.84
75.26
774

8.05
15.05
6.97
732

72.79
2.32
33.55
759

28.99
3.77
10.64
0.62

6.48
0.86
2.44
0.14

2.45
0.11
2.34
1.55

0.55
0.02
0.54
0.35

4.64
0.40
5.26
0.67

1.04
0.09
1.21
0.15

13.96
4.05
4.37
1.56

3.12
0.93
1.00
0.35

(6.50)
(19.30)
(17.75)
(291)

(10.05)
(9.32)
(24.12)
(302)

(10.37)
(15.53)
(13.71)
(283)

(14.88)
(5.97)
(31.31)
(303)

S-N vs O-N

S-P vs O-P

O-N vs O-P

n 19 (one subject was missing affect rating data). Degrees of freedom are thus for multivariate ANOVA F(4,15), univariate ANOVA F(1,18) and for post hoc paired t-tests t(18). For paired comparisons between
conditions, the effect size d0 is noted. Multivariate tests were statistically significant for Reference, F(4,15) 11.56, P < 0.001, 2 < 0.76, Valence, F(4,15) 139.05, P < 0.001, 2 0.97 and
Reference-x-Valence, F(4,15) 8.14, P 0.001, 2 0.69. For survey endorsement, the results of univariate ANOVA were: Reference, F(1,18) 11.79, P 0.003, 2 0.40, Valence, F(1,18) 458.64,
P < 0.001, 2 0.96 and Reference-x-Valence, F(1,18) 20.47, P < 0.001 2 0.53. For negative affect (NA) ratings, the results of univariate ANOVA were: Reference, F(1,18) 0.04, P 0.85, 2 < 0.01,
Valence, F(1,18) 25.11, P < 0.001, 2 0.58 and Reference-x-Valence, F(1,18) 0.00, P 0.99, 2 < 0.01. For positive affect (PA) ratings, the results of univariate ANOVA were: Reference, F(1,18) 27.31,
P < 0.001, 2 0.60, Valence, F(1,18) 92.89, P < 0.001, 2 0.84 and Reference-x-Valence, F(1,18) 20.61, P < 0.001, 2 0.53. Finally, for RT (ms), the results of univariate ANOVA were: Reference,
F(1,18) 3.04, P 0.10, 2 0.14, Valence, F(1,18) 1.73, P 0.21, 2 0.09 and Reference-x-Valence, F(1,18) 0.18, P 0.68, 2 0.01.

also compared response occurring during S-N relative to S-P trials,

S-N relative to O-N trials, and S-P relative to O-P trials, thus examining the effects of Valence within Reference, and Reference within
Valence. Group-averaged results for these contrasts are reported in
Table 2 and Figure 2. We also report the results of main effect contrasts
for Reference and Valence in Supplementary Table S2 and
Supplementary Figures F1 and F2.
Of primary interest to this study, however, was a multiple regression
analysis associating individual differences in survey and affective
response scores with between-participant variability in the BOLD
contrast between S-N trials and both fixation and O-N trials, and
S-P trials and both fixation and O-P trials. Note that we preferred to
evaluate BOLD correlations with adjective endorsement rather than
Rosenberg Self-Esteem scores in this study, which allowed direct examination of associations between response to a common stimulus set
(words) evaluated in differing contexts (i.e. paper-and-pencil survey
rating of self and other descriptiveness vs performance of the experimental component of the VV-SORP-T). Results concerning individual
differences are reported in Tables 3 and 4, and Figures 3 and 4.
We report within Tables clusters of size k  67 voxels (approximating the volume of the smoothing kernel) with uncorrected
voxel-wise P < 0.005 as a criterion selected so as to balance risk against
type-I and type-II errors (Lieberman and Cunningham, 2009). To
examine the location of BOLD responses we observed in relation to
previous studies, we also report the number of voxels that fell within
an 8-mm radius (equally the smoothing kernel) of coordinates reported in recent meta-analyses of SRP (van der Meer et al., 2010;
Qin and Northoff, 2011; Qin et al., 2012a) and key study results
(Phan et al., 2004; Moran et al., 2006; Lemogne et al., 2009, 2011;
Yoshimura et al., 2009); an ROI for the left and right temporoparietal
junction (TPJ) was also prescribed from van Overwalles (2009)
meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies of social cognition (as calculated in Frewen et al., 2010). Voxels in ROI analyses include those
exhibiting P < 0.05 after correction for multiple comparisons
(family-wise error rate) within the indicated centred spherical search
volume, denoted kSVC for Small-Volume Corrected. Cluster loci are
labelled by the voxel exhibiting maximal effect size within MNI space.
RESULTS
Self-report, experiential and behavioural response
Table 1 reports the descriptive and inferential statistics describing
self-report and behavioural response to the VV-SORP-T. Replicating
previous results (Frewen and Lundberg, 2012), survey endorsements
were higher for S-P as compared with O-P (d0 1.04), consistent with
the self-positivity bias. Positive affect was also higher during S-P than

Table 2 Group-level differences between VV-SORP-T trial types

Conditions

Regions

kP<0.005

kSVC

S-N > Fixation

Posterior mid-cingulate
Right superior parietal cortex
DMPFC
MPFC
Left middle frontal gyrus
Right DLPFC
Right temporal pole
Right posterior insula
Left posterior insula
Right middle frontal gyrus
Left middle frontal gyrus
Left middle frontal gyrus
Left precentral gyrus
Left precentral gyrus
Left posterior mid-cingulate
Left cuneus
Left cuneus
Posterior mid-cingulate
Right superior parietal cortex
No significant results
No significant results
No significant results

204
210
121
97
151
85
188
168
83
87
283
267
503
110
70
204
124
67
88

66a

32b

28c

132d

4.81
4.21
3.77
3.56
3.54
3.84
3.47
3.87
3.14
3.67
3.67
3.38
3.64
3.36
3.35
3.20
3.00
3.76
3.51

4
50
2
2
22
56
52
38
44
56
44
42
50
28
14
24
10
4
46

28
52
22
64
58
16
18
22
16
34
52
14
18
20
28
74
72
28
52

36
40
42
6
16
10
28
8
2
10
16
22
36
50
42
30
10
36
44

S-P > Fixation

O-P > Fixation
O-N > Fixation

S-N > S-P

S-P > S-N
S-N > O-N
S-P > O-P

All ROIs were prescribed from Moran et al. (2006). aAt ROI 3, 19, 38, PSVC < 0.01.
ROI 3, 19, 38, PSVC < 0.01.
At ROI 50, 24, 10, PSVC 0.02.
d
At ROI 56, 15, 10, PSVC < 0.02.
b
At
c

O-P trials (d0 1.21), although negative affect was not significantly
higher during S-N than O-N trials (d0 0.02). Finally, RT was
marginally slower during S-N than O-N trials (d0 0.35), and during
S-P than O-P trials (d0 0.15).
Further replicating previous results (Frewen and Lundberg, 2012),
participants who described themselves more positively (S-P survey endorsement) experienced less negative affect during S-N trials (r 0.77,
P < 0.001), less negative affect during S-P trials (r 0.57, P 0.006)
and greater positive affect during S-P trials (r 0.52, P 0.011). In
comparison, associations between S-N survey endorsement and affective
responses were non-significant.
fMRI-BOLD response
Group-level differences between trial types
Figure 2 and Table 2 report significant responses observed as specific to
each of the four distinct trial types at the group level in comparison
with between-block fixation (in Figure 2, S-N red, S-P green,

550

SCAN (2013)

P. A. Frewen et al.

Fig. 2 BOLD response during the four conditions of the VV-SORP-T vs baseline fixation. Response during S-N trials is shown in red, during S-P trials in green, during O-N trials in magenta, during O-P trials in
yellow. Voxel-wise P < 0.005 with a cluster threshold k  67 voxels.

Table 3 Individual differences in response to S-N trials of VV-SORP-T

Conditions

Predictors

Direction of correlation

Regions

kP<0.005

26b

4.10
3.51
3.40
3.14

12
22
2
42

48
54
28
26

6
2
12
10

S-N > Fixation

S-N Survey

L-MPFC
Cerebellum
VACC/VMPFC
L-IFG

No significant results

S-N > O-N

S-N
NA
S-N Survey

Supplementary motor area

R caudate
L superior temporal gyrus
PCC (retrosplenial cortex)
L superior temporal gyrus
R superior frontal gyrus
L-pACC (wm)

108
82
68
81
113
67
93

61c

4.37
3.91
3.58
3.43
3.39
3.37
4.08

2
18
52
10
58
44
16

10
2
20
36
42
40
32

54
0
6
2
0
28
6

R amygdalaparahippocampal gyrus
L superior temporal gyrus
L occipital cortex
L post-central gyrus (wm)
R fusiform gyrus

81
309
70
67
87

3.93
3.85
3.78
3.68
3.60

20
62
24
22
18

4
0
48
24
72

22
8
2
34
10

S-N
NA

168
79
78
67

kSVC

(wm), white matter.

ROI 6, 42, 12, Lemogne et al., 2011.
At ROI 0, 22, 9, Moran et al., 2006.
c
At ROI 3, 14, 49, Moran et al., 2006.
a
At
b

O-N magenta, O-P yellow). S-N trials activated three clusters: the
posterior mid-cingulate (at ROI 0, 13, 31, Moran et al., 2006;
kSVC 66), right superior parietal cortex and dorsal ACC-MPFC (at
ROI 3, 19, 38, Moran et al., 2006; kSVC 32). S-P trials activated two
clusters: ventral MPFC and left middle frontal cortex. O-P trials activated two clusters: right DLPFC and right temporal pole. Finally,

response during O-N trials was more distributed, with the maximal
effect size observed within the right posterior insula, and additional
activations observed within the left posterior insula, right middle frontal gyrus (at ROI 50, 24, 10, Moran et al., 2006; kSVC 28), left middle
frontal gyrus (at ROI 56, 15, 10, Moran et al., 2006; kSVC 132), left
precentral gyrus, left posterior mid-cingulate and left cuneus.

Neuroimaging self-esteem

SCAN (2013)

551

Table 4 Individual differences in response to S-P trials of the VV-SORP-T

Conditions

Predictors

Direction of correlation

Regions

kP<0.005

kSVC

S-P > Fixation

S-P Survey




R precuneus
L middle frontal gyrus (wm)
L post-central gyrus
L superior temporal gyrus
R amygdalaparahippocampal gyrus
R temporal pole
R temporal pole

85
91
143
107
148
119
102

3.92
3.60
3.44
3.26
3.67
3.53
4.51

18
22
34
48
36
58
62

42
40
32
14
0
6
6

60
18
58
34
20
18
16

DMPFC
L-TPJ (wm)
L-TPJ
L posterior insula (wm)
L post-central gyrus
L-superior frontal gyrus
No significant results
No significant results
R-DMPFC
L-TPJ
VMPFC
R-IFG
L-IFG
R-temporal pole
L-IFG
VMPFC

237
104
102
104
117
163

88
74
456
118
145
124
91
73

87a

48b

18c
22d
48e

20f

3.84
3.75
3.69
3.65
3.65
3.51

4.38
4.28
4.26
3.97
3.81
3.37
3.36
4.28

6
36
50
24
14
14

14
54
4
38
36
40
20
2

50
60
54
22
24
40

30
56
32
58
50
0
40
30

20
14
18
12
66
52

46
32
26
2
4
20
14
24

DMPFC
L-TPJ
L-IFG
R-caudate
Precuneus
L-cerebellum
VMPFC

229
108
169
159
186
75
95

35g
31h

4.10
4.08
4.03
3.75
3.70
3.34
2.93

12
52
20
10
2
16
8

32
60
24
14
60
62
52

46
16
16
4
38
34
20

+
S-P
PA

S-P > O-P

S-P Survey

S-P
PA









(wm), white matter.

ROI 2, 55, 17, Yoshimura et al., 2009.
At ROI 52, 56, 22, van Overwalle, 2009.
c
At ROI 6, 27, 42, Lemogne et al., 2011.
d
Two clusters within ROI 52, 56, 22, van Overwalle, 2009.
e
At ROI 3, 36, 18, Phan et al., 2004.
f
At ROI 3, 36, 18, Phan et al., 2004.
g
At ROI 6, 27, 42, Lemogne et al., 2011.
h
At ROI 52, 56, 22, van Overwalle, 2009.
a
At
b

Planned contrasts examining the effects of Valence within SRP and

Reference within Valence are also reported in Table 2. S-N trials were
associated with greater response than S-P trials within two regions: the
posterior mid-cingulate and right superior parietal cortex. In contrast,
S-P trials were not associated with greater response in comparison with
S-N trials in any brain region, and contrasts of Reference within
Valence were non-significant.
Individual differences in response to S-N trials
Table 3 and Figure 3 report correlations between self-report and
affective responses, on the one hand, and response during S-N trials,
relative to both between-block fixation and O-N trials, on the other.
Concerning the contrast S-N > fixation, a positive correlation was
observed between how negatively participants regarded themselves
and response within the ventral MPFC-ACC (including within ROI
0, 22, 9, Moran et al., 2006; kSVC 26). In addition, women who
rated themselves more negatively demonstrated increased response
within left VMPFC (including within ROI 6, 42, 12, Lemogne
et al., 2011; kSVC 7). In comparison, there were no significant correlations with variability in negative affective response.
Concerning the contrast S-N > O-N, participants who regarded
themselves more negatively demonstrated less response within the supplementary motor area (including within ROI 3, 14, 49, Moran et al.,

2006; kSVC 61) and retrosplenial cortex. In comparison, participants

who experienced greater negative affect exhibited greater response
within the parahippocampal gyrus and right amygdala.
Individual differences in response to S-P trials
Table 4 and Figure 4 report correlations across the whole-brain
between self-report and affective responses, on the one hand, and
BOLD response during S-P trials, relative to both between-block
fixation and O-P trials, on the other. Concerning the contrast
S-P > fixation, a negative correlation was observed between how positively participants regarded themselves and response within the right
parahippocampal gyrus/amygdala and right temporal pole. A positive
correlation was observed between positive affect experienced during
S-P trials and response within the DMPFC (within ROI 2, 55, 17,
Yoshimura et al., 2009; kSVC 87), left TPJ (within ROI 52, 56,
22, van Overwalle, 2009; kSVC 48) and right temporal pole.
Concerning the contrast S-P > O-P, a negative correlation was
observed between how positively participants regarded themselves
and response within VMPFC (at ROI 3, 36, 18, Phan et al., 2004;
kSVC 48), right DMPFC (at ROI 6, 27, 42, Lemogne et al., 2011;
kSVC 18), left TPJ (two clusters within ROI 52, 56, 22, van
Overwalle, 2009; kSVC 22 and 36), right temporal pole and bilateral
inferior frontal gyri. In comparison, the more positive affect

552

SCAN (2013)

P. A. Frewen et al.

Fig. 3 BOLD response during S-N trials vs baseline fixation (BL) and O-N trials. Within the legend, positive correlations are denoted with a plus symbol; there were no significant negative correlations. Positive
correlation between survey endorsement of negative traits and response during S-N trials (>BL) is shown in red. Positive correlation between survey endorsement of negative traits and response during S-N
trials (>O-N trials) is shown in magenta. Positive correlation between experienced negative affect and response during S-N trials (>O-N trials) is shown in blue. Voxel-wise P < 0.005 with a cluster threshold
k  67 voxels.

Fig. 4 BOLD response during S-P trials vs baseline fixation (BL) and O-P trials. Within the legend, positive correlations are denoted with a plus symbol, and negative correlations are denoted with a minus
symbol. Regarding survey endorsement of positive traits and response during S-P trials (>BL), positive correlations are shown in green and negative correlations are shown in red. Positive correlation between
experienced positive affect and response during S-P trials (>BL) is shown in yellow. Negative correlation between survey endorsement of positive traits and response during S-P trials (>O-P trials) is shown in
magenta. Positive correlation between experienced positive affect and response during S-P trials (>O-P trials) is shown in cyan. Voxel-wise P < 0.005 with a cluster threshold k  67 voxels.

Neuroimaging self-esteem
participants experienced during S-P trials, the greater was their
response within many of the same regions, specifically VMPFC (at
ROI 3, 36, 18, Phan et al., 2004; kSVC 20), DMPFC (at ROI 6,
27, 42, Lemogne et al., 2011; kSVC 35), left TPJ (within ROI 52,
56, 22, van Overwalle, 2009; kSVC 31), left inferior frontal gyrus, as
well as within the precuneus.
DISCUSSION
How people represent themselves in comparison with others, and the
role played by affective processing in such representations, are matters
of significant interest to a social cognitive and affective neuroscience of
core personality constructs including trait self-esteem. We investigated
the neural correlates of self-esteem-related processes in response to the
VV-SORP-T using an individual differences design.
Although recent meta-analyses confirm greater response within
MPFC, perigenual ACC and PCC during SRP than during ORP (van
der Meer et al., 2010; Qin and Northoff, 2011; Qin et al., 2012b),
individual studies using relatively neutral adjectives rarely observe
this effect (e.g. Ochsner et al., 2005; cf Heatherton et al., 2006; Yaoi
et al., 2009). Yoshimura et al. (2009), using valenced adjectives, similarly observed few differences between SRP and ORP. Within the
present study, the spatial maps obtained relative to fixation differed
between valenced SRP and ORP (Figure 2), while null effects were
observed when conditions were directly compared, as conducted by
Yoshimura et al. (2009). We speculate that the neural correlates of SRP
and ORP will differ principally in so far as SRP is regarded as more
affectively salient (e.g. Tacikowski et al., 2011). In other words, we
expect that trait endorsement must not only differentiate the self
from others, but this result must sufficiently matter to participants
to evoke corresponding differences in the BOLD signal. The use of
valenced adjectives as in Yoshimura et al.s (2009) study and the present one cannot assure this because, as was clearly the case in the
present study, most participants will endorse robustly positive views
of both themselves and others, leading trials requiring negative SRP
and ORP to be regarded as relatively neutral and irrelevant (Frewen
and Lundberg, 2012).
In contrast to the modal self-positivity bias, however, a certain
number of participants with lower self-esteem will endorse relatively
negative views of themselves and a corresponding range of affective
responses when such representations are primed such as via the
VV-SORP-T. Consistent with expectations, in the present study these
individual differences dovetailed considerably with between-subject
variability in the BOLD response within ROIs including MPFC,
PCC, left temporoparietal cortex and right amygdala. These potentials
for heterogeneity across subjects in experiential response to a common
stimulus pattern make them well suited to the study of the neural
correlates of personality and individual differences (Varela, 1996;
Lutz and Thompson, 2003). Further knowledge about the neural
underpinnings of negative SRP may also enlighten our understanding
of psychiatric disorders associated with maladaptive SRP including
depression (Grimm et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2009; Lemogne et al.,
2009) and post-traumatic stress disorder (Frewen et al., 2011).
The present findings are consistent with and further inform current
theorizing about the neural correlates of the emotional self (Fossati
et al., 2003). In particular, it has been posited that ventral MPFC
(inclusive of ventral ACC; Moran et al., 2006; Yoshimura et al.,
2009) may be particularly associated with SRP that is affectively (and
perhaps uniquely negatively) salient, whereas dorsal MPFC may be
particularly involved in conscious, reflective processes that are either
neutral or positive in nature (van der Meer et al., 2010; Heatherton,
2011). Consistent with previous observations, relative to fixation,
we observed ventral MPFC/ACC response during negative SRP

SCAN (2013)

553

particularly in women who regarded themselves more negatively (see

Figure 2, x 0, z 10, red blobs), but dorsal MPFC response
particularly in women who experienced greater positive affect during
positive SRP (see Figure 3, x 0, z 10 and 20, yellow blobs).
However, when contrasting response occurring during positive SRP
with positive ORP, ventral MPFC regions were particularly involved
such that, interestingly, response was increased as a function of
increasing positive affect but decreasing self-regard (see Figure 2,
x 0, z 20, cyan and magenta blobs, respectively). This dissociation suggests the merit of Phan et al.s (2004) distinction between
the significance of referential vs affective ratings and may inform
interpretations regarding the validity of direct (e.g. self-report
survey) vs indirect (e.g. task-induced affective response) assessments
of self-esteem-related processes (Buhrmester et al., 2011; Zeigler-Hill
and Jordan, 2010). Our findings that decreasing self-regard predicted
positive SRP response (Figure 2 magenta) agree with the hypothesis of
VMPFC involvement in negative SRP. However, the dissociation with
positive affective experience within a brain region strongly associated
with reward requires interpretation. One interpretation is that VMPFC
response is particularly increased in mediating positive affect in individuals for which positive affect is otherwise not easily activated, such
as in individuals disposed towards alexithymia (Berthoz et al., 2002)
and anhedonia (Keedwell et al., 2005; Harvey et al., 2007). However,
that the same dissociation was observed concerning response within
the left TPJ, which is widely implicated in social cognition and mentalizing (e.g. van Overwalle, 2009), suggests individual differences
during ORP likely complicate interpretation. Consistent with this,
self-reports obtained from the present participants as well as those
collected from participants in a previous study suggest that response
during ORP within the VV-SORP-T represents anything but simply a
neutral comparator condition (Frewen and Lundberg, 2012).
Investigation of individual differences in affective response during
ORP as a predictor of the BOLD response could clarify this concern,
but were considered beyond the scope of the present project given its
focus on valenced SRP as it relates to self-esteem. It should also be
noted that Lemogne and colleagues observed increasing response
during SRP within dorsal MPFC in both depressed individuals
(Lemogne et al., 2009) and individuals high in trait negative affect
(Lemogne et al., 2011), which challenges a model emphasizing only
the ventral MPFC in the affective aspects of SRP.
Besides response within higher cortical areas, Yoshimura and
colleagues recently revealed a dissociation between left vs right amygdala response and negative vs positive SRP, respectively (Yoshimura
et al., 2009). The right amygdala has also been associated with social
emotional processing (Britton et al., 2006; Frewen et al., 2010;
Heatherton, 2011) as is inherent to the VV-SORP-T (see Frewen and
Lundberg, 2012, for descriptions of socio-emotional responses during
ORP including guilt, shame and envy). In our study, however, not only
those women who experienced greater negative affect during negative
SRP, but also those women who regarded themselves less positively
before positive SRP, exhibited an increased right amygdala response. If
right amygdala response is to be interpreted as signifying a negative
self-appraisal within the context of SRP (Yoshimura et al., 2009), our
individual difference effects extend the significance of right amygdala
response to positively valenced SRP. However, our results may qualify
the finding in suggesting that the amygdala response may signify the
outcome of the appraisal, that is, the experienced negativity of a stimulus or task, rather than the negativity inherent to the stimulus or task,
per se. In other words, even objectively positive stimuli may be
responded to as if they are negative (e.g. Lemogne et al., 2009, 2011;
Frewen et al., 2012a, b), with the right amygdala response during SRP
perhaps revealing the valence or salience of the result of that appraisal.

554

SCAN (2013)

The loci of activations observed within the present study overlapped

most closely with those observed by Moran et al. (2006), Phan et al.
(2004) and Lemogne et al. (2011), the only other studies, to our knowledge, directly addressing between-subject variability in SRP using a
correlational design. MPFC response within the present study was
more inferior to loci summarized by recent meta-analyses (wherein
z-values are typically > 5; van der Meer et al., 2010; Qin and
Northoff, 2011; Qin et al., 2012a), but consistent with that observed
with the methodology of Phan et al. (2004; also used by Lemogne et al.,
2011). Provided current models emphasize VMPFC in the affective
aspects of SRP (van der Meer et al., 2010; Heatherton, 2011), this
confluence of findings for the VV-SORP-T and Phan et al. methodology are interesting provided that both methods likely encourage
affective processing more greatly than do most other standard judgments tasks (the Phan et al. method through the use of arousing
pictures and the VV-SORP-T by engendering an association between
self and valence and encouraging attention to that association).
Overlapping responses observed herein with those observed by
Moran et al. occurred in regions that differentiated reaction time in
Moran et al.s study, implicating these regions in online SRP. Future
neuroimaging studies might compare different SRP tasks to provide a
more nuanced assessment of the specific subprocesses involved in SRP.
Limitations of the present study should be addressed in future work.
We recruited only female participants for the present study due to
widely known gender differences in trait self-esteem and associated
risk for depression (Hyde et al., 2008); future studies may wish to
directly investigate the neural basis for these gender differences.
Clarity of interpretation could have been enhanced had we also administered neutral words and assessed affective response to the task not
only subjectively but also via peripheral physiological measures of
arousal. It should further be noted that contrasts of both SRP and
ORP with passive fixation may be underpowered due to similarity
between the neural processes involved in SRP, ORP and the passive
resting state (Qin and Northoff, 2011); inclusion of active control tasks
other than passive fixation would be useful in future studies, which
might utilize a rest-stimulus interaction paradigm to examine valenced
SRP and ORP (Northoff et al., 2010). Finally, the external real-world
validity of the VV-SORP-T for predicting socio-emotional behaviour
remains to be established.
SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
Supplementary data are available at SCAN online.
Conflict of Interest
None declared.

REFERENCES
Balota, D.A., Yap, M.J., Cortese, M.J., et al. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior
Research Methods, 39, 44559.
Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., Vohs, K.D. (2001). Bad is stronger than
good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 32370.
Baumeister, R.F., Campbell, J.D., Krueger, J.I., Vohs, K.D. (2003). Does high self-esteem
cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles?
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(1), 144.
Berthoz, S., Artiges, E., Van de Moortele, P.-F., et al. (2002). Effect of impaired recognition
and expression of emotions on frontocingulate cortices: an fMRI study of men with
alexithymia. American Journal of Psychiatry, 159, 9617.
Buhrmester, M.D., Blanton, H., Swann, W.B. (2011). Implicit self-esteem: nature, measurement, and a new way forward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2),
36585.
Bradley, M.M., Lang, P.J. (1999). Affective norms for English words (ANEW): Instruction
Manual and affective ratings. Technical Report C-1, The Center for Research in
Psychophysiology, University of Florida.
Briere, J. (2000). Cognitive Distortion Scales: Professional Manual. Odessa, FL, US:
Psychological Assessment Resources.

P. A. Frewen et al.
Britton, J.C., Phan, K.L., Taylor, S.F., Welsh, R.C., Berridge, K.C., Liberzon, I. (2006).
Neural correlates of social and nonsocial emotions: an fMRI study. NeuroImage, 31,
397409.
Fossati, P., Hevenor, S.J., Graham, S.J., et al. (2003). In search of the emotional self: an
fMRI study using positive and negative emotional words. The American Journal of
Psychiatry, 160, 193845.
Frewen, P.A., Dean, J., Lanius, R.A. (2012a). Assessment of anhedonia in psychological
trauma: development of the Hedonic Deficit and Interference Scale. European Journal of
Psychotraumatology, 3, 8585.
Frewen, P.A., Dozois, D.J.A., Lanius, R.A. (2012b). Assessment of anhedonia in psychological trauma: psychometric and neuroimaging perspectives. European Journal of
Psychotraumatology, 3, 8587.
Frewen, P.A., Dozois, D.J.A., Neufeld, R.W.J., Densmore, M., Stevens, T.K., Lanius, R.
(2010). Neuroimaging social emotional processing in women: fMRI study of
script-driven imagery. Social Cognitive Affective Neuroscience, 6, 37592.
Frewen, P.A., Dozois, D.J.A., Neufeld, R.W.J., Densmore, M., Stevens, T., Lanius, R.A.
(2011). Self-referential processing in women with PTSD related to childhood abuse:
affective and neural response. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and
Policy, 3, 31728.
Frewen, P.A., Lundberg, E. (2012). VisualVerbal Self/Other-Referential Processing Task:
direct vs. indirect assessment, valence, and experiential correlates. Personality and
Individual Difference, 52(4), 50914.
Gawronski, B. (2009). Ten frequently asked questions about implicit measures and their
frequently supposed, but not entirely correct answers. Canadian Psychology, 50(3),
14150.
Grimm, S., Jutta, E., Boesiger, P., et al. (2009). Increased self-focus in major depressive
disorder is related to neural abnormalities in subcortical-cortical midline structures.
Human Brain Mapping, 30, 261727.
Harvey, P.O., Pruessner, J., Czechowska, Y., Lepage, M. (2007). Individual differences in
trait anhedonia: a structural and functional magnetic resonance imaging study in
non-clinical subjects. Molecular Psychiatry, 12, 76775.
Heatherton, T.F. (2011). Neuroscience of self and self-regulation. Annual Review of
Psychology, 62, 36390.
Heatherton, T.F., Wyland, C.L., Macrae, C.N., Demos, K.E., Denny, B.T., Kelley, W.M.
(2006). Medial prefrontal activity differentiates self from close others. Social Cognitive
and Affective Neuroscience, 1(1), 1825.
Hyde, J.S., Mezulis, A.H., Abramson, L.Y. (2008). The ABCs of depression: integrating
affective, biological and cognitive models to explain the emergence of the gender
difference in depression. Psychological Review, 115, 291313.
Johnson, M.K., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Mitchell, K.J., Levin, Y. (2009). Medial cortex activity,
self-reflection and depression. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 4, 31327.
Keedwell, P.A., Andrew, C., Williams, S.C.R., Brammer, M.J., Phillips, M.L. (2005). The
neural correlates of anhedonia in major depressive disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 58,
84353.
Kelley, W.M., Macrae, C.N., Wyland, C.L., Caglar, S., Inati, S., Heatherton, T.F. (2002).
Finding the self? An event-related fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(5),
78594.
Lemogne, C., Gorwood, P., Bergouingnan, L., Pelissolo, A., Lehericy, S., Fossato, P. (2011).
Negative affectivity, self-referential processing and the cortical midline structures. Social
Cognitive and Affective Neurosceince, 6, 42633.
Lemogne, C., le Bastard, G., Mayberg, H., et al. (2009). In search of the depressive self:
extended medial prefrontal network during self-referential processing in major depression. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 4(3), 30512.
Lieberman, M.D., Cunningham, W.A. (2009). Type I and type II error concerns in fMRI
research: re-balancing the scale. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 4(4), 4238.
Loumann, I.M., Danforth, C.M., Harris, K.D., Bliss, C.A., Dodds, P.S. (2012). Positivity of
the English language. PLoS One, 7, e29484.
Lund, K., Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical
co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 28, 2038.
Lutz, A., Thompson, E. (2003). Neurophenomenology: integrating subjective experience
and brain dynamics in the neuroscience of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness
Studies, 910, 3152.
Mezulis, A.H., Abramson, L.Y., Hyde, J.S., Hankin, B.L. (2004). Is there a universal positivity bias in attributions? A meta-analytic review of individual, developmental, and
cultural differences in the self-serving attributional bias. Psychological Bulletin, 130(5),
71147.
Moran, J.M., Heatherton, T.F., Kelley, W.M. (2009). Modulation of cortical midline structure by implicit and explicit self-relevance evaluation. Social Neuroscience, 4(3), 197211.
Moran, J.M., Macrae, C.N., Heatherton, T.F., Wyland, C.L., Kelley, W.M. (2006).
Neuroanatomical evidence for distinct cognitive and affective components of self.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(9), 158694.
Northoff, G., Heinzel, A., de Greck, M., Bermpohl, F., Dobrowolny, H., Panksepp, J.
(2006). Self-referential processing in our brain-a meta-analysis of imaging studies on
the self. NeuroImage, 31, 44057.
Northoff, G., Qin, P., Nakao, T. (2010). Rest-stimulus interaction in the brain: a review.
Trends in Neuroscience, 33, 27784.

Neuroimaging self-esteem
Ochsner, K.N., Beer, J.S., Robertson, E.R., et al. (2005). The neural correlates of direct and
reflected self-knowledge. NeuroImage, 28(4), 797814.
Phan, K.L., Taylor, S.F., Welsh, R.C., Ho, S.H., Britton, J.C., Liberzon, I. (2004). Neural
correlates of individual ratings of emotional salience: a trial-related fMRI study.
NeuroImage, 21(2), 76880.
Qin, P., Liu, Y., Shi, J., et al. (2012a). Anterior cingulate activity and the self in disorders of
consciousness. Human Brain Mapping, 31, 19932002.
Qin, P., Liu, Y., Shi, J., et al. (2012b). Dissociation between anterior and posterior cortical
regions during self-specificity and familiarity: a combined fMRI-meta-analytic study.
Human Brain Mapping, 33(1), 15464.
Qin, P., Northoff, G. (2011). How is our self related to midline regions and the
default-mode network? NeuroImage, 57(3), 122133.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Tacikowski, P., Brechmann, A., Marchewka, A., Jednorog, K., Dobrowolny, M.,
Nowicka, A. (2011). Is it about the self or the significance? An fMRI study of self-name
recognition. Social Neuroscience, 6(1), 98107.

SCAN (2013)

555

Tottenham, N., Tanaka, J.W., Leon, A.C., et al. (2009). The NimStim set of facial expressions:
judgments from untrained research participants. Psychiatry Research, 168(3), 2429.
van der Meer, L., Costafreda, S., Aleman, A., David, A.S. (2010). Self-reflection and the
brain: a theoretical review and meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies with implications
for schizophrenia. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34(6), 93546.
Van Overwalle, F. (2009). Social cognition and the brain: a meta-analysis. Human Brain
Mapping, 30(3), 82958.
Varela, F.J. (1996). Neurophenomenology: a methodological remedy for the hard problem.
Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3(4), 33050.
Yaoi, K., Osaka, N., Osaka, M. (2009). Is the self special in the dorsomedial prefrontal
cortex? An fMRI study. Social Neuroscience, 4(5), 45563.
Yoshimura, S., Ueda, K., Suzuki, S., Onoda, K., Okamoto, Y., Yamawaki, S. (2009).
Self-referential processing of negative stimuli within the ventral cingulate gyrus and
right amygdala. Brain and Cognition, 69, 21825.
Zeigler-Hill, V., Jordan, C.H. (2010). Two faces of self-esteem: implicit and explicit forms
of self-esteem. In: Gawronski, B., Payne, K., editors. Handbook of Implicit Social
Cognition. NewYork, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 392407.