↓ Skip to main content

A biased activation theory of the cognitive and attentional modulation of emotion

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A biased activation theory of the cognitive and attentional modulation of emotion
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00074
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edmund T. Rolls

Abstract

Cognition can influence emotion by biasing neural activity in the first cortical region in which the reward value and subjective pleasantness of stimuli is made explicit in the representation, the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC). The same effect occurs in a second cortical tier for emotion, the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Similar effects are found for selective attention, to for example the pleasantness vs. the intensity of stimuli, which modulates representations of reward value and affect in the orbitofrontal and anterior cingulate cortices. The mechanisms for the effects of cognition and attention on emotion are top-down biased competition and top-down biased activation. Affective and mood states can in turn influence memory and perception, by backprojected biasing influences. Emotion-related decision systems operate to choose between gene-specified rewards such as taste, touch, and beauty. Reasoning processes capable of planning ahead with multiple steps held in working memory in the explicit system can allow the gene-specified rewards not to be selected, or to be deferred. The stochastic, noisy, dynamics of decision-making systems in the brain may influence whether decisions are made by the selfish-gene-specified reward emotion system, or by the cognitive reasoning system that explicitly calculates reward values that are in the interests of the individual, the phenotype.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Italy 2 2%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Unknown 122 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 27%
Researcher 20 15%
Student > Master 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 30 23%
Unknown 18 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 54 41%
Neuroscience 16 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 5%
Computer Science 6 5%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 26 20%
Attention Score in Context

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 20 June 2013.
All research outputs
#17,690,153
of 22,712,476 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,695
of 7,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,179
of 280,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#727
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,712,476 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,128 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 280,743 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 862 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.