Disentangling attention from action in the emotional spatial cueing task

Abstract

In the emotional spatial cueing task, a peripheral cue--either emotional or non-emotional--is presented before target onset. A stronger cue validity effect with an emotional relative to a non-emotional cue (i.e., more efficient responding to validly cued targets relative to invalidly cued targets) is taken as an indication of emotional modulation of attentional processes. However, results from previous emotional spatial cueing studies are not consistent. Some studies find an effect at the validly cued location (shorter reaction times compared to a non-emotional cue), whereas other studies find an effect at the invalidly cued location (longer reaction times compared to a non-emotional cue). In the current paper, we explore which parameters affect emotional modulation of the cue validity effect in the spatial cueing task. Results from five experiments in healthy volunteers led to the conclusion that a threatening spatial cue did not affect attention processes but rather indicate that motor processes are affected. A possible mechanism might be that a strong aversive cue stimulus decreases reaction times by means of stronger action preparation. Consequently, in case of a spatially congruent response with the peripheral cue, a stronger cue validity effect could be obtained due to stronger response priming. The implications for future research are discussed.

Independent effects of reward expectation and spatial orientation on the processing of emotional facial expressions

“…In previous studies that investigated the interaction between emotion and spatial orienting, researchers typically used an emotional or neutral face as a cue in order to examine their differential ability to capture attention, to affect orienting and reorienting of attention toward a later non-emotional target and the preparation of a motor response to the target (Brosch et al 2011;Fox et al 2002;Mulckhuyse and Crombez 2014;Taylor and Therrien 2005). For example, studies have reported that threatening cues (relative to neutral cues) reduced the IOR effect, suggesting that there is stronger retention and slower disengagement of attention cued by threatening stimuli (Fox et al 2002;Mulckhuyse and Crombez 2014). However, in the current study, the angry or neutral faces served as the targets.…”

The influence of emotional stimuli on the oculomotor system: A review of the literature

“…Behavioral studies on covert attention with manual responses have shown inconsistent results regarding the ability of emotional stimuli to capture attention in healthy populations (see for reviews Bar-Haim et al, 2007;Yiend, 2010). Specifically, early attention effects such as enhanced attentional capture are not always found in covert attention studies with manual responses (e.g., Koster, Crombez, Van Damme, Verschuere & De Houwer, 2004;Notebaert, Crombez, De Houwer, & Theeuwes, 2011;Mulckhuyse & Crombez, 2014). One of the reasons why some of these studies fail to find an effect of emotion might be due to the response mode.…”

Attention allocation to ambiguous health/somatic threat cues

“…Schrooten et al, 2012b) and type of required response (cf. Mulckhuyse and Crombez, 2014;Schrooten et al, 2012a). Previous studies with other paradigms than the single-cue modified spatial cueing task to examine attentional bias to pain-related or physical threat words, considering individual differences in pain catastrophizing, fear or anxiety sensitivity, produced seemingly inconsistent and inconclusive findings (Stewart et al, 1998;Keogh et al, 2001aKeogh et al, , 2003Keogh and Cochrane, 2002;Roelofs et al, 2002Roelofs et al, , 2003Roelofs et al, , 2005Asmundson et al, 2005;Lees et al, 2005;Huber et al, 2010;Baum et al, 2011;Dear et al, 2011;Dittmar et al, 2011;Van Ryckeghem et al, 2012).…”