12.12.2012 Views

Who Needs Emotions? The Brain Meets the Robot

Who Needs Emotions? The Brain Meets the Robot

Who Needs Emotions? The Brain Meets the Robot

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

organization of motivational–emotional systems 39<br />

missive bow and retreating. Thus, <strong>the</strong> particular behaviors aimed at maximal<br />

adaptation are fixed, yet <strong>the</strong>ir expression is modifiable and sensitive to ongoing<br />

stimulus conditions and outcomes. Here, we see <strong>the</strong> reptilian roots of<br />

motivational–emotional systems and <strong>the</strong>ir functions in <strong>the</strong> domains of positive<br />

affect (foraging, mating, sunning) and negative affect (aggressive defense,<br />

submission, pain).<br />

<strong>The</strong> notion of drives deserves mention before we explore <strong>the</strong> brain systems<br />

that mediate affect. <strong>The</strong> concept of instinct is derived from two main<br />

notions: that of essentially fixed, innate behavioral programs and that of drive,<br />

or satisfaction of bodily needs. However, <strong>the</strong> term drive, like emotion, has a<br />

somewhat checkered past in <strong>the</strong> history of psychology and motivation, particularly<br />

in traditional learning <strong>the</strong>ory. Drive <strong>the</strong>ory essentially postulated<br />

that learning was based on satisfaction of needs (Hull, 1943); however,<br />

modern interpretations of learning often discount drive as an explanatory<br />

concept, based on many examples of learning and flexible behavior in <strong>the</strong><br />

absence of satisfaction of any obvious need state (e.g., Berridge, 2001; Bindra,<br />

1978; Bolles, 1972; Dickinson & Balleine, 1994). It is certainly true that drive<br />

as conceptualized in a physiological sense (a biological need) cannot account<br />

for <strong>the</strong> diversity of motivated and learned behaviors. However, if we broaden<br />

our definition to include motivated, adaptive behaviors that are beneficial<br />

to <strong>the</strong> organism in its environment, it is still a useful concept. For example,<br />

most people would not argue that many mammalian species have an innate<br />

“drive” to move about and explore, to seek social stimulation, or to learn<br />

about spatial surroundings—behaviors that are not obviously mediated by<br />

any deficit state such as hunger or thirst but that clearly maximize fitness<br />

and availability of resources.<br />

BRAIN CIRCUITS AND THE REGULATION<br />

OF MOTIVATED BEHAVIOR<br />

<strong>The</strong> foregoing account suggests that <strong>the</strong>re are specific brain networks that<br />

subserve motivations and emotions. In recent decades, knowledge concerning<br />

<strong>the</strong>se networks has advanced at a rapid pace in terms of <strong>the</strong> detailed<br />

understanding of <strong>the</strong>ir organization, connectivity, neurochemical and neurohumoral<br />

integration, and molecular biology. <strong>The</strong> purpose of this section is<br />

to provide a condensed overview of <strong>the</strong> key elements and basic organization<br />

of <strong>the</strong>se networks. A number of excellent in-depth reviews of anatomy related<br />

to motivated behavior exist, to which <strong>the</strong> reader is referred for more<br />

detailed information as well as <strong>the</strong>oretical implications of brain neuroarchitecture<br />

(Risold, Thompson, & Swanson, 1997; Swanson, 2000; Petrovich,<br />

Canteras, & Swanson, 2001; Saper, 2000, 2002).

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!