160
distinguish the reward from the reward-control trials, the
predictions about group differences based on the global and
bivalent models could not be examined.
Yet, when the one LHD subject with high SCRs is
removed, the LHD group, as well as the RHD group, appears to
be deficient in emotional responding during the shock
condition. This finding does not provide support for either
the global or the bivalent view of emotional responding.
The verbal report measures showed clear differences in
the ratings of subjects during the stimulus compared to the
control trials. For both the shock and reward conditions,
however, there were no group differences in ratings of
emotion. As a consequence, the verbal report data does not
support either the global or bivalent models of emotion.
In conclusion, there is a dissociation in RHD patients
and most of the LHD subjects between verbal report of
emotion and autonomic responding. The reason for this
dissociation is unclear. It may be that subjects were able
to perceive the emotional situations accurately, but have a
deficit in autonomic responding. Another explanation is
that the brain damaged subjects were unable to accurately
perceive the emotional content of the anticipation trials
accurately, and thus, did not exhibit the expected SCR
responses. Lastly, a combination of both possibilities may
have contributed to the dissociation between verbal report
and autonomic responding.