The beneficial effect of valid compared to invalid cues on attention performance is a basic attentional mechanism, but the impact of emotional content on cue validity is poorly understood. We tested whether the effect of cue validity on attention performance differed when cues were angry, happy, or neutral faces. Moreover, we used scalp-recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) reflecting the capture of early visual attention (P1, N170) to test whether effects were strengthened when neurocognitive responses to angry or happy cues were enhanced (larger P1 and N170 amplitudes). Twenty-five participants completed a modified flanker task using emotional face cues to measure the effects of emotion on conflict interference. Attention performance was enhanced following valid versus invalid cues, but effects did not differ by emotion cue type. However, for participants showing relatively larger N170 amplitudes to angry face cues, attention performance was specifically disrupted on those trials. Conversely, participants with relatively larger N170 amplitudes to happy face cues showed facilitated performance across all valid trials. These findings suggest that individual neurocognitive sensitivities to emotion predict the impact of emotional content on the basic attentional phenomenon of cue validity.
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 07 July 2017.
All research outputs
#18,558,284
of 22,985,065 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#156,096
of 195,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,953
of 313,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,150
of 4,068 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,985,065 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 195,897 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 313,520 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,068 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
