| Title |
Binding neutral information to emotional contexts: Brain dynamics of long-term recognition memory
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13415-015-0385-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carlos Ventura-Bort, Andreas Löw, Julia Wendt, Javier Moltó, Rosario Poy, Florin Dolcos, Alfons O. Hamm, Mathias Weymar |
| Abstract |
There is abundant evidence in memory research that emotional stimuli are better remembered than neutral stimuli. However, effects of an emotionally charged context on memory for associated neutral elements is also important, particularly in trauma and stress-related disorders, where strong memories are often activated by neutral cues due to their emotional associations. In the present study, we used event-related potentials (ERPs) to investigate long-term recognition memory (1-week delay) for neutral objects that had been paired with emotionally arousing or neutral scenes during encoding. Context effects were clearly evident in the ERPs: An early frontal ERP old/new difference (300-500 ms) was enhanced for objects encoded in unpleasant compared to pleasant and neutral contexts; and a late central-parietal old/new difference (400-700 ms) was observed for objects paired with both pleasant and unpleasant contexts but not for items paired with neutral backgrounds. Interestingly, objects encoded in emotional contexts (and novel objects) also prompted an enhanced frontal early (180-220 ms) positivity compared to objects paired with neutral scenes indicating early perceptual significance. The present data suggest that emotional-particularly unpleasant-backgrounds strengthen memory for items encountered within these contexts and engage automatic and explicit recognition processes. These results could help in understanding binding mechanisms involved in the activation of trauma-related memories by neutral cues. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 99 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 16% |
| Researcher | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 26 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 43 | 43% |
| Neuroscience | 13 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Unknown | 29 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 September 2016.
All research outputs
#16,287,458
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#618
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,239
of 289,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#14
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 289,106 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.