The emotional attentional blink is robust to divided attention

Love and hate do not modulate the attentional blink but improve overall performance

How may feelings of love and hate impact people's attention? We used a modified Attentional Blink (AB) task in which 300 participants were asked to categorise a name representing a person towards whom they felt either hate, love, or neutral (first target) plus identify a number word (second target), both embedded in a rapidly presented stream of other words. The lag to the second target was systematically varied. Contrary to our hypothesis, results revealed that both hated and loved names resulted in higher accuracy for the second target than neutral names, which was largely independent of lag. Also, there we observed no sustained transfer effects of love and hate onto neutral name trials. The findings differ from prior research on attentional blink and transient, non-personal, stimulus-driven emotions, suggesting that interpersonal feelings activate different attention-relevant mechanisms. Relevant to future research, we speculate that love and hate are motivators of goal-directed behaviour that facilitate subsequent information processing.

More than a feeling: The emotional attentional blink relies on non-emotional "pop out," but is weak compared to the attentional blink

The attentional blink (AB) reveals temporal limits of goal-driven attention: the second of two proximate targets presented in a rapid stream of non-targets is often missed. In the emotional AB (EAB, also termed emotion-induced blindness), an emotionally valenced distractor replacing the first target yields a similar blink. However, the AB and EAB have not been adequately compared, and thus the extent of their mechanistic similarity remains unclear. The current study interleaved AB and EAB trials using identical stimuli in the same participants and observed that the AB is consistently larger than the EAB. Moreover, the four main experiments varied in both target-defining features (semantic vs. perceptual) and EAB distractor salience (emotion alone vs. emotion plus physical distinctiveness); an EAB was observed only when distractors were physically distinct. Even when a large EAB was observed, the AB was still larger using a task with identical targets and fillers in the same individuals. These results suggest that: (1) goal-driven attentional control (measured by the AB) has a greater influence than stimulus-driven attentional control (measured by the EAB: emotion valence and physical distinctiveness) on selection from a dynamic series of stimuli, and (2) emotional valence is insufficient on its own to trigger an EAB. However, these results are consistent with the account that when attention has already been captured by a physically salient distractor, emotional content can interfere with disengagement from the already-attended stimulus.

The effect of fearful faces on the attentional blink is modulated by emotional task relevance: An event-related potential study

A fearful face as second visual target (T2) was detected better than a neutral T2 in a Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP) task. The advantage of fear over neutral emotion was originally attributed to a limited-capacity mechanism, in which fearful stimuli are prioritized for attention over neutral stimuli. However, more recent studies have shown that the prioritization of the processing of fear is strongly dependent on the emotional task relevance. Combining the RSVP task and Garner's paradigm, by varying the expression (fearful and neutral faces) and the emotional task relevance of the T2 (relevance: emotion classification task; irrelevance: gender classification task), this study aims to investigate the role of emotional task relevance on the advantage of fear during an RSVP task in which participants have to identify two visual targets in a stream of distractors. The behavioral results revealed that there was no significant effect of the expression on the task performance in the gender classification task. Fearful faces were easier to detect than neutral faces, but the T2 accuracy of fearful faces was lower than that of neutral faces in the emotion classification task. Furthermore, we found that the vertex positive potential and P100 components were enhanced for fearful faces compared to neutral faces independent of the emotional task relevance. For the P300 component, there was no significant difference in the gender classification task, but fearful faces elicited enhanced P300 amplitudes compared to neutral faces in the emotion classification task. These results indicated that the early processing of fear is automatic, while the late processing of fear is dependent on the emotional task relevance under limited attentional resources.

The impact of emotional face stimuli on working memory performance among men and women with alcohol use disorder

BACKGROUND

Individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD) often display compromise in emotional processing and non-affective neurocognitive functions. However, relatively little empirical work explores their intersection. In this study, we examined working memory performance when attending to and ignoring facial stimuli among adults with and without AUD. We anticipated poorer performance in the AUD group, particularly when task demands involved ignoring facial stimuli. Whether this relationship was moderated by facial emotion or participant sex were explored as empirical questions.

METHODS

Fifty-six controls (30 women) and 56 treatment-seekers with AUD (14 women) completed task conditions in which performance was advantaged by either attending to or ignoring facial stimuli, including happy, neutral, or fearful faces. Group, sex, and their interaction were independent factors in all models. Efficiency (accuracy/response time) was the primary outcome of interest.

RESULTS

An interaction between group and condition (F_1,107 = 6.03, p < .02) was detected. Individual comparisons suggested this interaction was driven by AUD-associated performance deficits when ignoring faces, whereas performance was equivalent between groups when faces were attended. Secondary analyses suggested little influence of specific facial emotions on these effects.

CONCLUSIONS

These data provide partial support for initial hypotheses, with the AUD group demonstrating poorer working memory performance conditioned on the inability to ignore irrelevant emotional face stimuli. The absence of group differences when scenes were to be ignored (faces remembered) suggests the AUD-associated inability to ignore irrelevance is influenced by specific stimulus qualities.