Expectation modulates the preferential processing of task-irrelevant fear in the attentional blink: evidence from event-related potentials

Abstract

Background Reporting the second of the two targets is impaired when it occurs 200–500 ms after the first, the phenomenon in the study of consciousness is the attentional blink (AB). In the AB task, both the emotional salience and the expectation of the second target increase the likelihood of that target being consciously reported. Yet, little is known about how expectations modulate the prioritized processing of affective stimuli. We examined the role of expecting fearful expression when processing fear in an AB task. Participants were presented with an AB task where the 2nd target (T2) is either a fearful face or a neutral face, and had to report the target's gender. The frequency of fearful to neutral faces on a given block was manipulated, such that participants could either expect more or less fearful faces. Results In the Experiment 1, we found that fearful faces were more likely to be recognized than neutral faces during the blink period (lag3) when participants were not expecting a fearful face (low fear-expectation); however, high fear-expectation increased the discrimination of fearful T2 than neutral T2 outside the blink period (lag8). In the Experiment 2, we assessed ERP brain activity in response to perceived T2 during the blink period. The results revealed that fearful faces elicited larger P300 amplitudes compared to neutral faces, but only in the low fear-expectation condition, suggesting that expecting a fearful expression can suppress the processing of task-irrelevant facial expression and unexpected fearful expression can break through this suppression. Fearful T2 elicited larger vertex positive potential (VPP) amplitudes than neutral T2, and this affective effect was independent of fear-expectation. Since no effect of expectation was found on the VPP amplitude while P300 exhibited significant interaction between expectation and expression, this suggests that expectations modulate emotional processing at a later stage, after the fearful face has been differentially processed. Conclusions These results provided clear evidence for the contribution of the expectation to the prioritized processing of second affective stimuli in the AB.

Emotional T2 attenuates attentional blink: A window to understanding the preferential processing of emotion

“…研究使用 ERP 的方法考察了情绪 T2 对抗注意瞬 脱的认知机制 (Keil et al, 2006;Luo, Feng, et al, 2010;Qiu et al, 2022;Sun et al, 2021;Sun, Shang, et al, 2022;Trippe et al, 2007;Zhu et al, 2015 (Sun et al, 2021;Sun, Shang, et al, 2022) 出现 120 ms 后便被诱发 (Keil et al, 2006;Luo, Feng, et al, 2010;Trippe et al, 2007;Zhang et al, 2013;Zhang et al, 2014) 得情绪对抗注意瞬脱效应消失 (Sun et al, 2021;Sun, Shang, et al, 2022) 务过程中情绪的知觉 (Bach et al, 2014;de Martino et al, 2009;Nakamura et al, 2017;Sun et al, 2021;Zhao et al, 2018)。未来研究需要在实验设计中控 制这些因素的影响。 情绪对抗注意瞬脱有可能作为一个行为学指 标来反映个体在情绪加工上的差异, 有研究考察 了焦虑、自闭症和创伤后应激障碍群体中情绪对 抗注意瞬脱的特点 (Schönenberg & Abdelrahman, 2013;Trippe et al, 2007;van Dam et al, 2012;Weierich & Treat, 2015;Yerys et al, 2013)…”

“…2005; Taatgen et al, 2009; Vul et al, 2008)。 或者是认为存在工作记忆巩固的瓶颈使得在短时 间内只能有一个项目得到巩固, T1 的巩固使得其 后 200~500 ms 时窗内的 T2 不能被巩固(Chun & Potter, 1995; Lagroix et al, 2012; Raymond et al, 1992;Wyble et al, 2009)。显然, 这两种理论都强 调 T1 的巩固过程对 T2 的注意选择或者巩固过程 的干扰是出现注意瞬脱的关键原因。但是, 一系 列的实验结果表明 T2 的情绪特征对该目标的早 期注意选择和晚期巩固都产生了影响(Luo, Feng, et al, 2010;Sun et al, 2021;Sun, Shang, et al, 2022;Zhang et al, 2013)。这提示我们,…”