Capture of lexical but not visual resources by task-irrelevant emotional words: A combined ERP and steady-state visual evoked potential study

Trauer, Sophie M.; Andersen, Søren K.; Kotz, Sonja A.; Müller, Matthias

doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.12.016

Cited by 28 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Both perceptual and relational mismatch conditions elicited greater frontal P200 than the identity condition. This result was consistent with the explanation of P200 as perceptual attention (Hillyard et al, ; Luck & Hillyard, ), even allocated to task‐irrelevant stimuli (Doallo, Holguín, & Cadaveira, ; Trauer, Andersen, Kotz, & Müller, ). The third numbers in the perceptual and relational mismatch conditions here presented the different shapes to prior two numbers, which were irrelevant to rule acquisition.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Common and distinct brain responses to detecting top‐down and bottom‐up conflicts underlying numerical inductive reasoning

Xiao

Sun

et al. 2019

Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Complex reasoning problems are commonly influenced by a combination of top‐down and bottom‐up conflicts; however, the common and distinct brain responses to the two types of conflicts have remained unclear. Participants were required to identify the hidden rules in a number series completion task, which included identity condition (e.g., 13, 13, 13), perceptual mismatch condition (bottom‐up conflict, e.g., 13 13 +≡), and relational mismatch condition (top‐down conflict, e.g., 13 13 14). The ERP results showed that (a) both the perceptual and relational mismatch conditions triggered greater P200, N200, P300, and late positive component than the identity condition, reflecting attention reallocation, perceptual template deviations, feelings of uncertainty, and working memory updating, respectively, and (b) smaller N400 and decreased late negative component were found in the relational mismatch condition in contrast to other conditions, which suggested that changing number values violated rule expectancy as top‐down conflict. Therefore, multiple strategies were utilized to detect the conflicts underlying complex reasoning problems.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Common and distinct brain responses to detecting top‐down and bottom‐up conflicts underlying numerical inductive reasoning

Xiao

Sun

et al. 2019

Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, in the study by Harris and Pashler (2004), behavioral indications of exogenous attention to negative and neutral words were found only after their first presentation, and not in subsequent ones. Trauer, Andersen, Kotz and Müller (2012) reported ERP differences between negative and neutral distractors, although they attributed them to lexico-semantic processes, rather than to attention. Finally, Aquino and Arnell (2007) reported differences between sexually related items and neutral items, but not between threat-related or school-related items and neutral words.…”

Section: Exogenous Attention To Emotional Stimuli: Main Findings and mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1: 93.32; Exp.2: 95.53Iconic symbols (≈facial emoticons)2: Neutral, NegativeCenter of distracters at 7.8BehaviorYes, BehaviorNegEmotional content of targets and nature of the task Carretié et al 2012 26/10(24)Digit categorization94.5Scenes9: (Neutral, Negative, Positive) x (High Spatial Frequency, Intact, Low Spatial Frequency)0Behavior, fMRIYes, Behavior & fMRINeg & PosSpatial frequency(ROI strategy). Intraparietal sulcus (DAN), middle frontal gyrus (VAN & DAN) Feng et al 2012 13/13(21.69)Perceptual (detecting color frame)91.86Scenes4: Neutral, Negative, Positive (non erotic), Erotic0Behavior, ERPsYes, Behavior & ERPsErotic≈200 ms (anterior P2)N2, P3 Lichtenstein‐ Vidne et al 2012 50 participants in two experiments, F/M proportion not specified (young adults, age not specified)Perceptual (indicating the location of the target, which was emotional in some conditions)94 in both experimentsScenes3: Neutral, Negative, PositivePeripheral, but not specifiedBehaviorYes, BehaviorNegNordström & Wiens 2012 16/15 (27)Perceptual (letter detection)≈94.5Scenes2: Neutral, Negative0Behavior, ERPsYes, ERPsNeg≈240 ms (LPN)LPPTrauer et al 2012 12/11 (23.4)Perceptual (detecting moving & flickering squares)92.3Words3: Neutral, Negative, Positive0Behavior, ERPsYes, ERPsNeg≈240 ms (anterior P2) Junhong, H. et al 2013 Exp. 1: 24/11 (20.5).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exogenous (automatic) attention to emotional stimuli: a review

Carretié

2014

Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci

350

279

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current knowledge on the architecture of exogenous attention (also called automatic, bottom-up, or stimulus-driven attention, among other terms) has been mainly obtained from studies employing neutral, anodyne stimuli. Since, from an evolutionary perspective, exogenous attention can be understood as an adaptive tool for rapidly detecting salient events, reorienting processing resources to them, and enhancing processing mechanisms, emotional events (which are, by definition, salient for the individual) would seem crucial to a comprehensive understanding of this process. This review, focusing on the visual modality, describes 55 experiments in which both emotional and neutral irrelevant distractors are presented at the same time as ongoing task targets. Qualitative and, when possible, meta-analytic descriptions of results are provided. The most conspicuous result is that, as confirmed by behavioral and/or neural indices, emotional distractors capture exogenous attention to a significantly greater extent than do neutral distractors. The modulatory effects of the nature of distractors capturing attention, of the ongoing task characteristics, and of individual differences, previously proposed as mediating factors, are also described. Additionally, studies reviewed here provide temporal and spatial information—partially absent in traditional cognitive models—on the neural basis of preattention/evaluation, reorienting, and sensory amplification, the main subprocesses involved in exogenous attention. A model integrating these different levels of information is proposed. The present review, which reveals that there are several key issues for which experimental data are surprisingly scarce, confirms the relevance of including emotional distractors in studies on exogenous attention.

show abstract

“…Evidence suggests that the processing of emotional language, in spite of several similarities with other affective stimuli (for review see Citron, 2012; Kissler, 2013), also differs in important ways: for instance, electrophysiology studies show that processing of verbal emotional stimuli robustly differs from neutral ones only at mid-latency lexical and post-lexical (Kissler and Herbert, 2013; Palazova et al , 2013), but not at early perceptual stages (Trauer et al , 2012, 2015). When they are observed, early perceptual emotion effects in language themselves seem to rely on specific acquisition mechanisms such as conditioning with first-order US (Montoya et al , 1996; Schacht et al 2012; Fritsch and Kuchinke, 2013; Kuchinke et al , 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An evil face? Verbal evaluative multi-CS conditioning enhances face-evoked mid-latency magnetoencephalographic responses

Junghöfer

Rehbein

Maitzen

et al. 2016

Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans have a remarkable capacity for rapid affective learning. For instance, using first-order US such as odors or electric shocks, magnetoencephalography (MEG) studies of multi-CS conditioning demonstrate enhanced early (<150 ms) and mid-latency (150–300 ms) visual evoked responses to affectively conditioned faces, together with changes in stimulus evaluation. However, particularly in social contexts, human affective learning is often mediated by language, a class of complex higher-order US. To elucidate mechanisms of this type of learning, we investigate how face processing changes following verbal evaluative multi-CS conditioning. Sixty neutral expression male faces were paired with phrases about aversive crimes (30) or neutral occupations (30). Post conditioning, aversively associated faces evoked stronger magnetic fields in a mid-latency interval between 220 and 320 ms, localized primarily in left visual cortex. Aversively paired faces were also rated as more arousing and more unpleasant, evaluative changes occurring both with and without contingency awareness. However, no early MEG effects were found, implying that verbal evaluative conditioning may require conceptual processing and does not engage rapid, possibly sub-cortical, pathways. Results demonstrate the efficacy of verbal evaluative multi-CS conditioning and indicate both common and distinct neural mechanisms of first- and higher-order multi-CS conditioning, thereby informing theories of associative learning.

show abstract

Capture of lexical but not visual resources by task-irrelevant emotional words: A combined ERP and steady-state visual evoked potential study

Cited by 28 publications

References 78 publications

Common and distinct brain responses to detecting top‐down and bottom‐up conflicts underlying numerical inductive reasoning

Common and distinct brain responses to detecting top‐down and bottom‐up conflicts underlying numerical inductive reasoning

Exogenous (automatic) attention to emotional stimuli: a review

An evil face? Verbal evaluative multi-CS conditioning enhances face-evoked mid-latency magnetoencephalographic responses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About