↓ Skip to main content

Neural Correlates of Opposing Effects of Emotional Distraction on Working Memory and Episodic Memory: An Event-Related fMRI Investigation

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
132 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
Neural Correlates of Opposing Effects of Emotional Distraction on Working Memory and Episodic Memory: An Event-Related fMRI Investigation
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00293
Pubmed ID
Authors

Florin Dolcos, Alexandru D. Iordan, James Kragel, Jared Stokes, Ryan Campbell, Gregory McCarthy, Roberto Cabeza

Abstract

A fundamental question in the emotional memory literature is why emotion enhances memory in some conditions but disrupts memory in other conditions. For example, separate studies have shown that emotional stimuli tend to be better remembered in long-term episodic memory (EM), whereas emotional distracters tend to impair working memory (WM) maintenance. The first goal of this study was to directly compare the neural correlates of EM enhancement (EME) and WM impairing (WMI) effects, and the second goal was to explore individual differences in these mechanisms. During event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), participants maintained faces in WM while being distracted by emotional or neutral pictures presented during the delay period. EM for the distracting pictures was tested after scanning and was used to identify successful encoding activity for the picture distracters. The first goal yielded two findings: (1) emotional pictures that disrupted face WM but enhanced subsequent EM were associated with increased amygdala (AMY) and hippocampal activity (ventral system) coupled with reduced dorsolateral PFC (dlPFC) activity (dorsal system); (2) trials in which emotion enhanced EM without disrupting WM were associated with increased ventrolateral PFC activity. The ventral-dorsal switch can explain EME and WMI, while the ventrolateral PFC effect suggests a coping mechanism. The second goal yielded two additional findings: (3) participants who were more susceptible to WMI showed greater amygdala increases and PFC reductions; (4) AMY activity increased and dlPFC activity decreased with measures of attentional impulsivity. Taken together, these results clarify the mechanisms linking the enhancing and impairing effects of emotion on memory, and provide insights into the role of individual differences in the impact of emotional distraction.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 125 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 20%
Student > Master 21 16%
Researcher 20 15%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 25 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 64 48%
Neuroscience 16 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 32 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 16 October 2014.
All research outputs
#7,372,223
of 22,711,645 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,656
of 29,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,665
of 280,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#469
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,645 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,505 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 280,737 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.