Preferential processing of task-irrelevant beloved-related information and task performance: Two event-related potential studies

Abstract

People who are in love have better attention for beloved-related information, but report having trouble focusing on other tasks, such as (home)work. So, romantic love can both improve and hurt cognition. Emotional information is preferentially processed, which improves task performance when the information is task-relevant, but hurts task performance when it is task-irrelevant. Because beloved-related information is highly emotional, the effects of romantic love on cognition may resemble these effects of emotion on cognition. We examined whether beloved-related information is preferentially processed even when it is task-irrelevant and whether this hurts task performance. In two event-related potential studies, participants who had recently fallen in love performed a visuospatial short-term memory task. Task-irrelevant beloved, friend, and stranger faces were presented during maintenance (Study 1), or encoding (Study 2). The Early Posterior Negativity (EPN) reflecting early automatic attentional capturing and the Late Positive Potential (LPP) reflecting sustained motivated attention were largest for beloved pictures. Thus, beloved pictures are preferentially processed even when they are task-irrelevant. Task performance and reaction times did not differ between beloved, friend, and stranger conditions. Nevertheless, self-reported obsessive thinking about the beloved tended to correlate negatively with task performance, and positively with reaction times, across conditions. So, although task-irrelevant beloved-related information does not impact task performance, more obsessive thinking about the beloved might relate to poorer and slower overall task performance. More research is needed to clarify why people experience trouble focusing on beloved-unrelated tasks and how this negative effect of love on cognition could be reduced.

Electrophysiological Correlates of Romantic Love: A Review of EEG and ERP Studies with Beloved-Related Stimuli

“…Taken together, these studies suggest that an EPN for the beloved occurs with both fast and slow stimulus presentation. In three of these four analyses, there was no EPN for friend (vs. stranger) pictures [50,56], which suggests that the EPN for the beloved is not the result of familiarity or positive valence. The effect of beloved stimuli on the EPN suggests that the beloved captures early attention that is relatively resource-independent, which probably reflects the evolutionary significance of the beloved due to romantic love playing an important role in reproduction [61].…”

“…Importantly, this love effect on the P3 occurred regardless of the target/distractor status of the pictures, which implies that the enhanced attention for the beloved occurred regardless of the instruction to pay attention to the beloved or not. In two other studies [56], participants who were in love performed short-term memory tasks with neutral shapes while taskirrelevant face pictures of the beloved, friend, and strangers were presented. Participants were informed that the faces were task-irrelevant (study 1) or were instructed to ignore them (study 2).…”

“…Three studies have tested the effect of romantic love on the EPN. In the two studies in which task-irrelevant beloved, friend, and stranger pictures were presented during short-term memory tasks, an EPN occurred between 250-400 ms for beloved (vs. friend) pictures at lateral occipital (study 1) and lateral parietal (study 2) electrodes [56]. In another study with participants who were in love [50], an EPN occurred between 225-300 ms in response to beloved (vs. friend) pictures at a left parietal electrode in a rapid serial visual presentation task and at lateral parietal and lateral and midline occipital electrodes in a slower, passive viewing task.…”

Increasing Love Feelings, Marital Satisfaction, and Motivated Attention to the Spouse

“…Since infatuation is a more arousing state than attachment (Gonzaga et al, 2006), a different approach is to correlate the LPP amplitude difference with arousal rating differences between beloved and friend. Although this correlation was significant in one study (Study 2 of Langeslag & Van Strien, 2020), it was not significant in two other studies (Langeslag et al, 2015; Study 1 of Langeslag & Van Strien, 2020). So, it is as of yet unclear if the LPP in response to the beloved is sensitive to individual differences in subjective arousal, infatuation, and/or attachment.…”

Subjective ratings of fear are associated with frontal late positive potential asymmetry, but not with early brain activity over the occipital and centro‐parietal cortices

“…These neurons form part of a neural pathway that processes visual information from the retina via the superior colliculus, allowing for fast detection of threatening stimuli (Morris, Öhman, & Dolan, 1999;Tamietto & de Gelder, 2010). Several electroencephalographic (EEG) studies on humans have provided evidence in support of the Snake Detection Theory (He, Kubo, & Kawai, 2014;Grassini et al, 2019;Grassini, Holm, Railo, & Koivisto, 2016;Grassini, Railo, Valli, Revonsuo, & Koivisto, 2018;Langeslag & van Strien, 2017;Van Strien, Christiaans, Franken, & Huijding, 2016;Van Strien, Eijlers, Franken, & Huijding, 2014a;Van Strien, Franken, & Huijding, 2014b;Van Strien & Isbell, 2017). These have shown that images of snakes specifically modulate an early/intermediate event-related potential (ERP) component-the Early Posterior Negativity (EPN, a negative deflection around 225-300 from stimulus onset).…”