↓ Skip to main content

Working Memory Load Attenuates Emotional Enhancement in Recognition Memory

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
Working Memory Load Attenuates Emotional Enhancement in Recognition Memory
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00112
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ewa A. Miendlarzewska, Gijs van Elswijk, Carlo V. Cannistraci, Raymond van Ee

Abstract

Emotionally arousing stimuli are perceived and remembered better than neutral stimuli. Under threat, this negativity bias is further increased. We investigated whether working memory (WM) load can attenuate incidental memory for emotional images. Two groups of participants performed the N-back task with two WM load levels. In one group, we induced anxiety using a threat of shock paradigm to increase attentional processing of negative information. During task performance we incidentally and briefly flashed emotional distracter images which prolonged response times in both load conditions. A subsequent unannounced immediate recognition memory test revealed that when load at exposure had been low, recognition was better for negative items in both participant groups. This enhancement, however, was attenuated under high load, leaving performance on neutral items unchanged regardless of the threat of shock manipulation. We conclude that both in threat and in normal states WM load at exposure can attenuate immediate emotional memory enhancement.

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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 70 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 22%
Student > Master 14 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 8%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 12 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 41%
Neuroscience 9 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Engineering 4 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 16 22%
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 18 March 2013.
All research outputs
#20,185,720
of 22,701,287 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,821
of 29,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,721
of 280,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#851
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,701,287 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,459 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 280,698 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.