What’s next? Neural correlates of emotional predictions: A high-density EEG investigation

Cristaldi, Fiorella Del Popolo; Mento, Giovanni; Buodo, Giulia; Sarlo, Michela

doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2021.105708

Cited by 15 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Usually, S2 valence is manipulated at two levels, and a response is required to each S2 (e.g., emotion categorization, subjective valence and arousal ratings) (see Mercado et al, 2008 for a review on emotional S1-S2 paradigms). The S1-S2 paradigm allows to effectively investigate the three stages of affective prediction construction, with S1 processing reflecting the generation stage, the inter-stimulus interval (ISI) between S1 and S2 the implementation stage, and S2 the prediction updating (Del Popolo Cristaldi et al, 2021). Extant literature focused on the role of currently available probabilistic information on affective processing, by manipulating explicitly labeled certain (100%) vs. uncertain (50%) relationships between S1 and S2.…”

Section: 2) Manipulating Previous Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

Does your past define you? The role of previous visual experience in subjective reactions to new affective pictures and sounds.

Cristaldi¹,

Gambarota²,

Oosterwijk³

2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to predictive models of emotion, people use their previous experience to construct new affective predictions. We do not live in a stable world, however. Some environments are uncertain, others are not. This study investigated how experiencing certain vs. uncertain probabilistic relationships shapes subjective reactions to new affective stimuli, within and across sensory modalities. Two S1-S2 paradigms were employed as learning and test phases in two experiments. S1s were colored circles, S2s negative or neutral affective pictures or sounds. Participants (N = 192, 179) were assigned to the certain (CG) or uncertain group (UG), and they were presented with 100% (CG) or 50% (UG) S1-S2 congruency between visual stimuli during the learning phase. During the test phase both groups were presented with a new S1-S2 paradigm with a 75% S1-S2 congruency, and visual (Experiment 1) or auditory (Experiment 2) S2s. Participants were asked to rate the expected valence of upcoming S2s (expectancy ratings), or their experienced valence and arousal (valence and arousal ratings). In both experiments, participants in the CG reported more negative expectancy ratings after the S1s previously paired with negative stimuli, whereas no group differences emerged on valence and arousal ratings. Furthermore, when comparing the two experiments, no significant group by experiment interaction was found. Overall, and in line with predictive models, our results suggest that relying on a certain previous experience shapes subjective expectancies toward a coherent labeling of the predicted valence of future stimuli, and that this process develops similarly across sensory modalities.

show abstract

Section: 2) Manipulating Previous Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

Does your past define you? The role of previous visual experience in subjective reactions to new affective pictures and sounds.

Cristaldi¹,

Gambarota²,

Oosterwijk³

2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The could in fact be considered as potential neural indicators to assess, or to intervene on (e.g., through biofeedback), when developing preventive and treatment measures for clinical and subclinical populations. Furthermore, our results suggest that, when assessing the relationships between IU and emotion, contextual uncertainty should be taken into more careful account, since its amount has proved to impact neural correlates of emotional predictions [26].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…To this aim, we employed an emotional S1-S2 paradigm (cfr. [26]) in which contextual uncertainty was manipulated by means of valid (100%), moderately predictive (75%), and random (50%) emotional congruency between S1 and S2. Standardized emotional faces and pictures with positive, negative, or neutral valence were employed as S1s and S2s, respectively.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For each neurocomputational stage, we targeted specific ERP components, which have been shown to respond to the experimental manipulation (cfr. [26]). As for prediction generation, we focused on S1-N170, which is sensitive to predictive contexts, and reflects structural encoding and coarse emotional processing of facial expressions [30][31][32].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dealing with uncertainty: A high-density EEG investigation on how intolerance of uncertainty affects emotional predictions

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intolerance of uncertainty (IU) can influence emotional predictions, constructed by the brain (generation stage) to prearrange action (implementation stage), and update internal models according to incoming stimuli (updating stage). However, neurocomputational mechanisms by which IU affects emotional predictions are unclear. This high-density EEG study investigated if IU predicted event-related potentials (ERPs) and brain sources activity developing along the stages of emotional predictions, as a function of contextual uncertainty. Thirty-six undergraduates underwent a S1-S2 paradigm, with emotional faces and pictures as S1s and S2s, respectively. Contextual uncertainty was manipulated across three blocks, each with 100%, 75%, or 50% S1-S2 emotional congruency. ERPs, brain sources and their relationship with IU scores were analyzed for each stage. IU did not affect prediction generation. During prediction implementation, higher IU predicted larger Contingent Negative Variation in the 75% block, and lower left anterior cingulate cortex and supplementary motor area activations. During prediction updating, as IU increased P2 to positive S2s decreased, along with P2 and Late Positive Potential in the 75% block, and right orbito-frontal cortex activity to emotional S2s. IU was therefore associated with altered uncertainty assessment and heightened attention deployment during implementation, and to uncertainty avoidance, reduced attention to safety cues and disrupted access to emotion regulation strategies during prediction updating.

show abstract

“…As in typical emotional S1-S2 paradigms, a sequential presentation of two stimuli is implemented (both in the learning and test phases): the S1 (or cue) is a symbolic stimulus (i.e., red or blue circles), while the S2 (or target) is an emotional stimulus (i.e., negative or neutral affective pictures). The sequence of events in the S1-S2 paradigm allows to target the three stages of affective prediction construction: the S1 reflects the generation stage, the inter-stimulus interval (ISI) between S1 and S2 the implementation stage, and the S2 the updating stage (Del Popolo Cristaldi, Mento, et al, 2021). The contribution of this new paradigm is that it manipulates actual previous experience through uninstructed certain vs. uncertain probabilistic contingencies between S1 and S2 experienced during a separate learning phase.…”

Section: 2) a Novel Experimental Paradigmmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of implicit learning and cue ambiguity on the subjective experience of affective predictions: a follow-up behavioral investigation.

Cristaldi¹,

Buodo²,

Gambarota³

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People use their previous experience to predict present affective events. Since we live in ever-changing environments, affective predictions must generalize from past contexts (from which they are implicitly learned) to new, potentially ambiguous contexts. This study investigated how past (un)certain relationships influence subjective experience following new ambiguous cues, and whether past relationships can be learned implicitly. Two S1-S2 paradigms were employed as learning and test phases in two experiments. S1s were colored circles, S2s negative or neutral affective pictures. Participants (N = 121, 116) were assigned to the certain (CG) or uncertain group (UG), and they were presented with 100% (CG) or 50% (UG) S1-S2 congruency during an uninstructed (Experiment 1) or implicit (Experiment 2) learning phase. During the test phase both groups were presented with a new 75% S1-S2 paradigm, and ambiguous (Experiment 1) or unambiguous (Experiment 2) S1s. Participants were asked to rate the expected valence of upcoming S2s (expectancy ratings), or their experienced valence and arousal (valence and arousal ratings). In Experiment 1 ambiguous cues elicited less negative expectancy ratings, and less unpleasant valence ratings, independently from prior experience. In Experiment 2, participants in the CG reported more negative expectancy ratings after the S1s previously paired with negative stimuli. Overall, we found that in the presence of ambiguous cues subjective affective experience is dampened, and we confirmed that people are able to infer probabilistic relationships from the environment (and to use them later) at an implicit level.

show abstract

What’s next? Neural correlates of emotional predictions: A high-density EEG investigation

Cited by 15 publications

References 75 publications

Does your past define you? The role of previous visual experience in subjective reactions to new affective pictures and sounds.

Does your past define you? The role of previous visual experience in subjective reactions to new affective pictures and sounds.

Dealing with uncertainty: A high-density EEG investigation on how intolerance of uncertainty affects emotional predictions

The role of implicit learning and cue ambiguity on the subjective experience of affective predictions: a follow-up behavioral investigation.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About