↓ Skip to main content

Your emotion or mine: labeling feelings alters emotional face perception—an ERP study on automatic and intentional affect labeling

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 X users

Readers on

mendeley
146 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Your emotion or mine: labeling feelings alters emotional face perception—an ERP study on automatic and intentional affect labeling
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00378
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cornelia Herbert, Anca Sfärlea, Terry Blumenthal

Abstract

Empirical evidence suggests that words are powerful regulators of emotion processing. Although a number of studies have used words as contextual cues for emotion processing, the role of what is being labeled by the words (i.e., one's own emotion as compared to the emotion expressed by the sender) is poorly understood. The present study reports results from two experiments which used ERP methodology to evaluate the impact of emotional faces and self- vs. sender-related emotional pronoun-noun pairs (e.g., my fear vs. his fear) as cues for emotional face processing. The influence of self- and sender-related cues on the processing of fearful, angry and happy faces was investigated in two contexts: an automatic (experiment 1) and intentional affect labeling task (experiment 2), along with control conditions of passive face processing. ERP patterns varied as a function of the label's reference (self vs. sender) and the intentionality of the labeling task (experiment 1 vs. experiment 2). In experiment 1, self-related labels increased the motivational relevance of the emotional faces in the time-window of the EPN component. Processing of sender-related labels improved emotion recognition specifically for fearful faces in the N170 time-window. Spontaneous processing of affective labels modulated later stages of face processing as well. Amplitudes of the late positive potential (LPP) were reduced for fearful, happy, and angry faces relative to the control condition of passive viewing. During intentional regulation (experiment 2) amplitudes of the LPP were enhanced for emotional faces when subjects used the self-related emotion labels to label their own emotion during face processing, and they rated the faces as higher in arousal than the emotional faces that had been presented in the "label sender's emotion" condition or the passive viewing condition. The present results argue in favor of a differentiated view of language-as-context for emotion processing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users 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 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 2%
Colombia 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 133 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 22%
Student > Master 29 20%
Student > Bachelor 21 14%
Researcher 14 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 21 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 78 53%
Neuroscience 11 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 3%
Computer Science 4 3%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 27 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 13 February 2015.
All research outputs
#1,897,342
of 22,714,025 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#929
of 7,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,452
of 280,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#163
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,714,025 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,129 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
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 280,752 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.