Attentional bias to brief threat-related faces revealed by saccadic eye movements.

Abstract

According to theories of emotion and attention, we are predisposed to orient rapidly toward threat. However, previous examination of attentional cueing by threat showed no enhanced capture at brief durations, a finding that may be related to the sensitivity of the manual response measure used. Here we investigated the time course of orienting attention toward fearful faces in the exogenous cueing task. Cue duration (20 ms or 100 ms) and response mode (saccadic or manual) were manipulated. In the saccade mode, both enhanced attentional capture and impaired disengagement from fearful faces were evident and limited to 20 ms, suggesting that saccadic cueing effects emerge rapidly and are short lived. In the manual mode, fearful faces impacted only upon the disengagement component of attention at 100 ms, suggesting that manual cueing effects emerge over longer periods of time. Importantly, saccades could reveal threat biases at brief cue durations consistent with current theories of emotion and attention.

Distracted by danger: Temporal and spatial dynamics of visual selection in the presence of threat

“…This account is consistent with results from previous cueing studies. In these studies, an eye movement had to be made to one of two target locations that were previously cued with threatening or nonthreatening stimuli (Bannerman et al, 2010a(Bannerman et al, , 2010bSchmidt, Belopolsky, & Theeuwes, 2015). Both studies showed the tight coupling between a shift of spatial attention to a threatening stimulus and the direct influence on the oculomotor system.…”

“…Both studies showed the tight coupling between a shift of spatial attention to a threatening stimulus and the direct influence on the oculomotor system. For example, Bannerman et al (2010aBannerman et al ( , 2010b showed that a briefly presented threatening peripheral cue decreased saccade latency relative to a nonthreatening cue when an eye movement had to be executed to a target presented at the same location (valid cue) and increased saccade latency when the target was presented at the opposite location (invalid cue). Likewise, Schmidt et al (2015) showed that a peripherally presented threatening stimulus interfered with subsequent endogenously driven saccades; a decrease in saccade latency when a saccade had to be executed to the location previously cued with a threatening stimulus relative to a nonthreatening stimulus, and an increase in saccade latency when a saccade had to be executed away from that location.…”

“…Eye movements are a direct and very sensitive measure of visual selection, as they can occur as early as 150 ms after stimulus onset, while manual responses typically vary between 300 and 2000 ms. Therefore, eye movements can reveal emotional modulation of visual selection not visible in manual behavior, such as manual reaction time or accuracy (e.g., Bannerman, Milders, de Gelder, & Sahraie, 2009;, 2010a.…”

The political left rolls with the good and the political right confronts the bad: connecting physiology and cognition to preferences

“…On the whole, people are risksensitive in that their physiological responses and cognitive attention are heightened by aversive stimuli, a pattern that makes sense from an evolutionary point of view [26]. Previous empirical research supports this line of thought and, on average, physiological [39] and cognitive [40,41] responses to aversive images outstrip those to appetitive images.…”

“Distracters” Do Not Always Distract: Visual Working Memory for Angry Faces is Enhanced by Incidental Emotional Words

“…The presence of emotion during attention and WM tasks has been shown to strongly influence how we in turn perceive and process a situation, and there is evidence that particular emotions can both facilitate and impair performance, depending on the task at hand. Numerous studies report that attention is rapidly oriented and biased toward faces displaying fear or anger (Eastwood et al, 2003; Fenske and Eastwood, 2003; Fox and Damjanovic, 2006; Hahn et al, 2006; Horstmann et al, 2006; Bannerman et al, 2010; Feldmann-Wüstefeld et al, 2011; Huang et al, 2011) and toward threatening words and scenes (Fox et al, 2001; Yiend and Mathews, 2001; Koster et al, 2004). Within the normal human population this attentional threat bias is considered to be facilitatory in that it engages a primitive survival response to locate and process danger swiftly and effectively.…”