Cognitive control is a construct that prioritizes how we process stimuli and information to flexibly and efficiently adapt to internal goals and external environmental changes. The Dual Mechanism of Control (DMC) theory delineates two distinct cognitive control operations: proactive control and reactive control (Braver, 2012). Anxiety has been posited to differentially affect proactive and reactive control, due to its influence on working memory and attention allocation (Eysenck et al., 2007; Fales et al., 2008). However, no study has yet directly compared the influence of anxiety on proactive and reactive control in the same individuals. In this study, we examined how state anxiety affected proactive control, using the AX-continuous performance task (AX-CPT), and reactive control, using the classic Stroop task. Based on theory and previous investigations, we expected that state anxiety would enhance reactive control but impair proactive control. Consistent with our predictions, we found that state anxiety, induced with a threat of shock manipulation, inhibited proactive control on the AX-CPT test, but increased reactive control in the Stroop task. Anxiety may impair proactive control in contexts requiring goal maintenance by occupying limited working memory capacity, whereas it may enhance reactive control via facilitated attention allocation to threat and engaging the conflict monitoring system to quickly modify behavior.

By employing discourse-historical approach and corpus linguistics, this paper examines media reports to analyze the Chinese official discourse in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak. The results demonstrate that a paradox of globalism and nationalism has been simultaneously reflected when reporting the global pandemic. Based on a polarizing discursive construction of positive "self" and negative "others," on many occasions, the globalist and nationalist arguments have been closely intertwined and complement each other to reinforce the legitimacy of the ruling party at home and the international reputation of China under the leadership of the ruling party.

Background:Esophageal replacement (ER) surgery has been widely used in long-gap esophageal atresia (LGEA) over the past few decades. The most commonly used surgical approaches in many pediatric surgical centers include colon interposition (CI), gastric pull-up (GPU), jejunal interposition (JI), and gastric tube reconstruction (GTR). However, there is no systematic evidence on which is the optimal conduit for the native esophagus. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes among these 4 replacement approaches in LGEA cases based on current evidence.Methods:PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched for relevant literature on November 18 2016. Studies on ER in LGEA were reviewed and selected according to eligibility criteria. We focused on surgical outcomes regarding to different replacement approaches, including postoperative complications and long-term follow-up. Both detailed descriptions of single studies and pooled data analysis were conducted. Data were computed by Reviewer Manager 5.3.Results:Twenty-three studies were included (4 comparative retrospective, 3 prospective, and 16 retrospective) with a total of 593 patients (393 LGEA, 66.3%). The number of patients with available data for analysis was 534 (90.1%), including 127 patients (98 LGEA) of GPU, 335 (223 LGEA) of CI, 45 (all LGEA) of JI, and 27 (all LGEA) of GTR. Follow-up information was provided in 15 studies. Anastomotic leak and stricture, respiratory problems, and gastroesophageal reflux were analyzed as major postoperative complications. Long-term follow-ups were concentrated on growth and feeding conditions.Conclusion:Current evidence on short- and long-term outcomes of ER in LGEA patients was limited, and proper prospective comparative studies were lacking. This present systematic review indicates CI and GPU as comparable and favorable approaches, especially CI in the long-term outcomes. Studies on JI and GTR were limited, which need larger sample size to assess their validity and outcomes.

No abstract