Automatic attention to emotional stimuli: Neural correlates

Abstract

We investigated the capability of emotional and nonemotional visual stimulation to capture automatic attention, an aspect of the interaction between cognitive and emotional processes that has received scant attention from researchers. Event-related potentials were recorded from 37 subjects using a 60-electrode array, and were submitted to temporal and spatial principal component analyses to detect and quantify the main components, and to source localization software (LORETA) to determine their spatial origin. Stimuli capturing automatic attention were of three types: emotionally positive, emotionally negative, and nonemotional pictures. Results suggest that initially (P1: 105 msec after stimulus), automatic attention is captured by negative pictures, and not by positive or nonemotional ones. Later (P2: 180 msec), automatic attention remains captured by negative pictures, but also by positive ones. Finally (N2: 240 msec), attention is captured only by positive and nonemotional stimuli. Anatomically, this sequence is characterized by decreasing activation of the visual association cortex (VAC) and by the growing involvement, from dorsal to ventral areas, of the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Analyses suggest that the ACC and not the VAC is responsible for experimental effects described above. Intensity, latency, and location of neural activity related to automatic attention thus depend clearly on the stimulus emotional content and on its associated biological importance.

Peripherally Presented Emotional Scenes: A Spatiotemporal Analysis of Early ERP Responses

“…In central vision, the first modulation due to the emotional content of the picture was observed earlier than 100 ms on parieto-occipital areas. This kind of effect was already described in this latency range but rarely on the peak of the P100 itself [15,52]. In far peripheral vision (+30°and -30°), the earliest emotional influence was observed in the contralateral occipital area, after 120 ms, i.e.…”

Ambient Light Modulation of Exogenous Attention to Threat

“…Enhanced amplitudes of P1p (or posterior P1) in response to spiders presented as distractors in tasks similar to that employed here (concurrent but distinct target-distractor tasks, or CDTD) have previously been reported (Carretié et al 2005;Carretié et al 2009). Additionally, sensitivity of P2a (or anterior P2) to the emotional content of distractors has been frequently reported too, with greater amplitudes for negative distractors, as compared to neutral, being consistently found (Carretié et al 2004;2011;2013b;Feng et al 2012;Holmes et al 2006;Junhong et al 2013). Finally, P3o (or occipital P3, since it showed maximal amplitudes in this scalp region) has been also reported in CDTD tasks, such as visual search tasks (Luck 2012), and must be distinguished from the well-known centro-parietal P3 or P3b, and from fronto-central P3, also termed P3a or novelty P3.…”

Acute Stress and Event-Related Potential Correlates of Attention to Alcohol Images in Social Drinkers

“…This variant of the P300 is attention dependent and is an index of controlled processing (Realmuto et al, 1993). The P300 is often preceded by a central negativity (N200), which is also sensitive to emotion and substance-related attentional biases (Carretié et al, 2004), and is thought to refl ect automatic processing (Realmuto et al, 1993). Previous fi ndings suggest that emotional stimuli activate motivational, appetitive systems to enhance automatic processing, resulting in larger amplitudes and/or shorter latencies of ERPs (Carretié et al, 2004;Schupp et al, 2006).…”

“…The P300 is often preceded by a central negativity (N200), which is also sensitive to emotion and substance-related attentional biases (Carretié et al, 2004), and is thought to refl ect automatic processing (Realmuto et al, 1993). Previous fi ndings suggest that emotional stimuli activate motivational, appetitive systems to enhance automatic processing, resulting in larger amplitudes and/or shorter latencies of ERPs (Carretié et al, 2004;Schupp et al, 2006). This prioritized processing can then either interfere with or enhance subsequent controlled processes of stimulus evaluation and/or decision-making (Compton, 2003).…”