Emotional stimuli capture spatial attention but do not modulate spatial memory

Abstract

There is evidence that emotional stimuli capture spatial attention and that visual memory is enhanced for emotional content. Here we examine the relationship between emotional content of stimuli and interactions with spatial memory. To assess spatial memory, a modified version of the Corsi Blocks Task (CBT), utilising emotional stimuli, was employed. In the CBT a series of spatial positions are highlighted and the participant has to repeat these in the order in which they were produced. Results showed that presenting more meaningful stimuli, such as emotional faces (e.g. angry or happy) at the spatial locations in the CBT did not enhance spatial memory span relative to the presentation of neutral stimuli (e.g. neutral faces) or non-image stimuli signified by a change in the luminance of the blocks. In addition, saccadic eye movements performed during retention disrupted spatial memory for all items. This occurred irrespective of whether the item to be remembered was a face, a luminance-defined stimulus or whether the face carried emotional significance. The results were not related to the visibility of the test stimuli as participants recognised the emotion displayed by the faces significantly above chance and rated emotional faces as being more arousing than neutral faces. Changes in the type of emotional stimulus (e.g. fearful faces, emotional schematic faces, spiders or flowers) or encoding (short vs. long) duration did not alter the pattern of results. These findings demonstrate an important dissociation between spatial capture and memory. Although emotional content can modulate orienting behaviour, it appears to be of limited effect on spatial memory.

Remembering who was where: A happy expression advantage for face identity-location binding in working memory.

“…Two studies have addressed the question of whether emotional expression can influence spatial WM accuracy for faces in general, with no requirement to encode specific face identity. Using a modified version of the Corsi-block paradigm, Bannerman, Temminck, and Sahraie (2012) asked participants to reproduce in the same order the sequence of locations inhabited by either happy, angry, fearful, or neutral faces. They found no effect of emotion on spatial WM accuracy, and no difference in performance when the locations were signaled by the presence of faces versus a change in luminance.…”

“…Another aspect that has to be taken into account in examining visuospatial WM is that the traditional approach of assessing performance exclusively in terms of “all-or-none” correct or incorrect responses may be too rudimentary. Bannerman et al (2012) , Gonzáles-Garrido et al (2013) , and Terburg et al (2012) used placeholders during maintenance and retrieval and thus measured relatively coarse ability to relocate information. Such an assessment does not reflect the fact that memory may be not as simple as “remember” or “forget” but better defined in terms of more subtle variations in the visuospatial precision of representations (see Bays, Catalao, & Husain, 2009 , or Fukuda, Awh, & Vogel, 2010 ).…”

Dissociable neural systems for unconditioned acute and sustained fear

“…Other's fearful reactions act as a cue to potential threats to ourselves (Tipples, 2006), and children learn what is dangerous by observing the fearful reactions of other people (Gerull & Rapee, 2002;Olsson & Phelps, 2007). Fearful faces attract attention (Bannerman, Temminck, & Sahraie, 2012), and simply seeing someone express fear elicits a sympathetic fearful response Vaughan & Lanzetta, 1980;Yoshihara et al, 2016). Fear is alleviated when in the company of others (Hennessy, Kaiser, & Sachser, 2009), and social bonding is fostered after sharing a traumatic experience (Bastian, Jetten, & Ferris, 2014;Jong, Whitehouse, Kavanagh, & Lane, 2015).…”

Testing location memory for threatening and nonthreatening stimuli : implications for evolutionary psychological theorizing.

“…Other research has focused on location memory for threatening faces (Bannerman, Temminck, & Sahraie, 2012). The authors used a modified version of the Corsi Blocks Task to assess spatial memory span.…”

“…Summarizing the findings regarding memory for emotional stimuli, recognition memory for emotional faces is better than for non-emotional faces (Patel et al, 2012), although location memory may not be (Bannerman et al, 2012). In addition, non-face emotional stimuli are generally remembered better than non-emotional stimuli (Mather & Sunderland, 2011), including their locations (Mather & Nesmith, 2008).…”