↓ Skip to main content

What Is the Effect of Basic Emotions on Directed Forgetting? Investigating the Role of Basic Emotions in Memory

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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
What Is the Effect of Basic Emotions on Directed Forgetting? Investigating the Role of Basic Emotions in Memory
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00378
Pubmed ID
Authors

Artur Marchewka, Marek Wypych, Jarosław M. Michałowski, Marcin Sińczuk, Małgorzata Wordecha, Katarzyna Jednoróg, Anna Nowicka

Abstract

Studies presenting memory-facilitating effect of emotions typically focused on affective dimensions of arousal and valence. Little is known, however, about the extent to which stimulus-driven basic emotions could have distinct effects on memory. In the present paper we sought to examine the modulatory effect of disgust, fear, and sadness on intentional remembering and forgetting using widely used item-method directed forgetting (DF) paradigm. Eighteen women underwent fMRI scanning during encoding phase in which they were asked either to remember (R) or to forget (F) pictures. In the test phase all previously used stimuli were re-presented together with the same number of new pictures and participants had to categorize them as old or new, irrespective of the F/R instruction. On the behavioral level we found a typical DF effect, i.e., higher recognition rates for to-be-remembered (TBR) items than to-be-forgotten (TBF) ones for both neutral and emotional categories. Emotional stimuli had higher recognition rate than neutral ones, while among emotional those eliciting disgust produced highest recognition, but at the same time induced more false alarms. Therefore, when false alarm corrected recognition was examined the DF effect was equally strong irrespective of emotion. Additionally, even though subjects rated disgusting pictures as more arousing and negative than other picture categories, logistic regression on the item level showed that the effect of disgust on recognition memory was stronger than the effect of arousal or valence. On the neural level, ROI analyses (with valence and arousal covariates) revealed that correctly recognized disgusting stimuli evoked the highest activity in the left amygdala compared to all other categories. This structure was also more activated for remembered vs. forgotten stimuli, but only in case of disgust or fear eliciting pictures. Our findings, despite several limitations, suggest that disgust have a special salience in memory relative to other negative emotions, which cannot be put down to differences in arousal or valence. The current results thereby support the suggestion that a purely dimensional model of emotional influences on cognition might not be adequate to account for observed effects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 1%
Unknown 95 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 16%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Master 7 7%
Other 4 4%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 26 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 43 45%
Neuroscience 11 11%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 29 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 17 August 2016.
All research outputs
#4,694,786
of 22,992,311 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,115
of 7,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,378
of 364,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#35
of 167 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,992,311 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,184 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 364,966 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 167 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.