Limits...
Attention and positive affect: temporal switching or spatial broadening?

Phaf RH - Atten Percept Psychophys (2015)

Bottom Line: It is argued here that these results should also be interpreted in terms of an increased switching over time between flankers and target (i.e., flexibility).In contrast to what is found with simultaneous non-masked flanker presentation, masking produced larger interference with negative than with positive moods.These results seem incompatible with a spatial broadening account and support an affective modulation account in terms of flexibility.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Amsterdam Brain and Cognition Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, r.h.phaf@uva.nl.

ABSTRACT
Evolutionary reasoning and computation suggest that positive affect is associated with higher attentional flexibility than negative affect, even when affectively neutral material is processed. The affective modulation of interference in the Eriksen flanker task seems, however, more readily explained by a spatial broadening of attention due to positive affect. It is argued here that these results should also be interpreted in terms of an increased switching over time between flankers and target (i.e., flexibility). The two hypotheses were contrasted with positive and negative mood inductions in a masked-flanker task. The interval (Stimulus Onset Asynchrony; SOA) with which the masked flankers preceded the target letter was parametrically varied. In contrast to what is found with simultaneous non-masked flanker presentation, masking produced larger interference with negative than with positive moods. In addition, a crossover interaction between mood and SOA emerged. These results seem incompatible with a spatial broadening account and support an affective modulation account in terms of flexibility.

Show MeSH
Average flanker-compatibility index in ms as a function of Stimulus Onset Asynchrony (SOA) and mood. Error bars denote 1 standard error (SE), and have been adjusted for within-subjects designs
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4381110&req=5

Fig2: Average flanker-compatibility index in ms as a function of Stimulus Onset Asynchrony (SOA) and mood. Error bars denote 1 standard error (SE), and have been adjusted for within-subjects designs

Mentions: To further elucidate the interactions, the FCI was calculated (see Fig. 2). Interference increased as a function of SOA (SOA = 0 ms: FCI = 39 ± 32 ms; SOA =30 ms: FCI = 51 ± 37 ms; SOA = 60 ms: FCI = 62 ± 41 ms; SOA = 90 ms: FCI = 62 ± 35; SOA = 120 ms: FCI = 56 ± 30 ms). More importantly, the crossover interaction meant that at short SOAs (SOA = 0 ms: t(35) = 2.290, p < 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.48) interference was larger with negative than with positive moods, but was smaller for longer SOAs (SOA = 60 ms: t(35) = −2.780, p < 0.01, d = 0.51; SOA = 90 ms: t(35) = −1.701, p = 0.098, d = 0.29). For SOA = 30 ms and SOA = 120 ms the mood conditions did not differ reliably. Only positive inductions modulated flanker interference across SOAs (F(4, 140) = 10.062, p < 0. 0001, ηp2 = 0.223).Fig. 2


Attention and positive affect: temporal switching or spatial broadening?

Phaf RH - Atten Percept Psychophys (2015)

Average flanker-compatibility index in ms as a function of Stimulus Onset Asynchrony (SOA) and mood. Error bars denote 1 standard error (SE), and have been adjusted for within-subjects designs
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4381110&req=5

Fig2: Average flanker-compatibility index in ms as a function of Stimulus Onset Asynchrony (SOA) and mood. Error bars denote 1 standard error (SE), and have been adjusted for within-subjects designs
Mentions: To further elucidate the interactions, the FCI was calculated (see Fig. 2). Interference increased as a function of SOA (SOA = 0 ms: FCI = 39 ± 32 ms; SOA =30 ms: FCI = 51 ± 37 ms; SOA = 60 ms: FCI = 62 ± 41 ms; SOA = 90 ms: FCI = 62 ± 35; SOA = 120 ms: FCI = 56 ± 30 ms). More importantly, the crossover interaction meant that at short SOAs (SOA = 0 ms: t(35) = 2.290, p < 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.48) interference was larger with negative than with positive moods, but was smaller for longer SOAs (SOA = 60 ms: t(35) = −2.780, p < 0.01, d = 0.51; SOA = 90 ms: t(35) = −1.701, p = 0.098, d = 0.29). For SOA = 30 ms and SOA = 120 ms the mood conditions did not differ reliably. Only positive inductions modulated flanker interference across SOAs (F(4, 140) = 10.062, p < 0. 0001, ηp2 = 0.223).Fig. 2

Bottom Line: It is argued here that these results should also be interpreted in terms of an increased switching over time between flankers and target (i.e., flexibility).In contrast to what is found with simultaneous non-masked flanker presentation, masking produced larger interference with negative than with positive moods.These results seem incompatible with a spatial broadening account and support an affective modulation account in terms of flexibility.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Amsterdam Brain and Cognition Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, r.h.phaf@uva.nl.

ABSTRACT
Evolutionary reasoning and computation suggest that positive affect is associated with higher attentional flexibility than negative affect, even when affectively neutral material is processed. The affective modulation of interference in the Eriksen flanker task seems, however, more readily explained by a spatial broadening of attention due to positive affect. It is argued here that these results should also be interpreted in terms of an increased switching over time between flankers and target (i.e., flexibility). The two hypotheses were contrasted with positive and negative mood inductions in a masked-flanker task. The interval (Stimulus Onset Asynchrony; SOA) with which the masked flankers preceded the target letter was parametrically varied. In contrast to what is found with simultaneous non-masked flanker presentation, masking produced larger interference with negative than with positive moods. In addition, a crossover interaction between mood and SOA emerged. These results seem incompatible with a spatial broadening account and support an affective modulation account in terms of flexibility.

Show MeSH