↓ Skip to main content

The influence of emotions on cognitive control: feelings and beliefs—where do they meet?

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 (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
225 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
The influence of emotions on cognitive control: feelings and beliefs—where do they meet?
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00508
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katia M. Harlé, Pradeep Shenoy, Martin P. Paulus

Abstract

The influence of emotion on higher-order cognitive functions, such as attention allocation, planning, and decision-making, is a growing area of research with important clinical applications. In this review, we provide a computational framework to conceptualize emotional influences on inhibitory control, an important building block of executive functioning. We first summarize current neuro-cognitive models of inhibitory control and show how Bayesian ideal observer models can help reframe inhibitory control as a dynamic decision-making process. Finally, we propose a Bayesian framework to study emotional influences on inhibitory control, providing several hypotheses that may be useful to conceptualize inhibitory control biases in mental illness such as depression and anxiety. To do so, we consider the neurocognitive literature pertaining to how affective states can bias inhibitory control, with particular attention to how valence and arousal may independently impact inhibitory control by biasing probabilistic representations of information (i.e., beliefs) and valuation processes (e.g., speed-error tradeoffs).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 225 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 3%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 210 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 54 24%
Student > Master 34 15%
Researcher 31 14%
Student > Bachelor 23 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 7%
Other 41 18%
Unknown 27 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 115 51%
Neuroscience 17 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 4%
Other 28 12%
Unknown 35 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 14 February 2023.
All research outputs
#4,554,516
of 25,375,376 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#1,974
of 7,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,089
of 293,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#282
of 860 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,375,376 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 293,966 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 860 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.