| Title |
Do emotion-induced blindness and the attentional blink share underlying mechanisms? An event-related potential study of emotionally-arousing words
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13415-017-0499-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeffrey MacLeod, Brandie M. Stewart, Aaron J. Newman, Karen M. Arnell |
| Abstract |
When two targets are presented within approximately 500 ms of each other in the context of rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP), participants' ability to report the second target is reduced compared to when the targets are presented further apart in time. This phenomenon is known as the attentional blink (AB). The AB is increased in magnitude when the first target is emotionally arousing. Emotionally arousing stimuli can also capture attention and create an AB-like effect even when these stimuli are presented as to-be-ignored distractor items in a single-target RSVP task. This phenomenon is known as emotion-induced blindness (EIB). The phenomenological similarity in the behavioral results associated with the AB with an emotional T1 and EIB suggest that these effects may result from similar underlying mechanisms - a hypothesis that we tested using event-related electrical brain potentials (ERPs). Behavioral results replicated those reported previously, demonstrating an enhanced AB following an emotionally arousing target and a clear EIB effect. In both paradigms highly arousing taboo/sexual words resulted in an increased early posterior negativity (EPN) component that has been suggested to represent early semantic activation and selection for further processing in working memory. In both paradigms taboo/sexual words also produced an increased late positive potential (LPP) component that has been suggested to represent consolidation of a stimulus in working memory. Therefore, ERP results provide evidence that the EIB and emotion-enhanced AB effects share a common underlying mechanism. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Austria | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 71 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 18 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 36 | 50% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 10% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 22 | 31% |
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 10 March 2017.
All research outputs
#18,827,930
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#830
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,279
of 314,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 314,354 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.