Upload
harlow
View
47
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The effect of task-irrelevant emotional information on attentional process. Yang-Ming Huang http://yangming.huang.googlepages.com Louvain-la-Neuve May 2007. Background. Task-irrelevant emotional information captures attention and impair task performance. Vuilleumier et al. (2001). - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
The effect of task-irrelevant emotional information on attentional process
Yang-Ming Huanghttp://yangming.huang.googlepages.com
Louvain-la-Neuve
May 2007
Background
• Task-irrelevant emotional information captures attention and impair task performance
Vuilleumier et al. (2001)
Background
• Task-irrelevant emotional information does not capture attention when processing load is high
Pessoa et al. (2002)
Goal
• To understand how task-irrelevant emotional information affects – Spatial attention– Temporal attention
The effect of task-irrelevant emotional information on spatial attentional processing
http://www.sinauer.com/wolfe/sampler/figures/index.php
Visual Search Task
Task-irrelevant colour information impair visual search performance.
General Method
• IV– Target presence (Yes or No)*– Set size (4, 8 or 16)– Condition (NEU, EMO-T or EMO-D)
• DV– Visual search slope
Term Explanation
• NEU: Task-irrelevant emotional information do not provide information on target location
Term Explanation
• EMO-T: Task-irrelevant emotional information provides information on target location
Term Explanation
• EMO-D: Task-irrelevant emotional information provides false information on target location
NEU EMO-T EMO-D
Does task-irrelevant emotional information capture attention?
550
570
590
610
630
650
670
690
710
730
750
4 8 16
Set Size
Rea
ctio
n T
ime
(ms)
NEU
EMO-T
EMO-D
Does task-irrelevant emotional information capture attention when it is more salient in the display?
NEU EMO-T EMO-D
500
520
540
560
580
600
620
640
4 8 16
Set Size
Rea
ctio
n T
ime
(ms)
NEU
EMO-T
EMO-D
Does task-irrelevant emotional information capture attention when the task is more difficult?
NEU EMO-T EMO-D
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
4 8 16
Set Size
Rea
ctio
n T
ime
(ms)
NEU
EMO-T
EMO-D
What if task-irrelevant emotional information is always indicative of target location?
NEU EMO-T
SURPRISE TRIAL
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
4 8 16
set size
Rea
ctio
n T
ime
(ms)
NEU
EMO-T
65% of the participants got the surprise trial wrong
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
4 8 16
Set SizeR
eact
ion
Tim
e (m
s)
NEU
neu
EMO-T
emo-t
Interim summary
• Attentional capture by task-irrelevant emotional information is modulated– Saliency of the emotional information– Strategy
The effect of task-irrelevant emotional information on temporal attentional processing
http://www.sinauer.com/wolfe/sampler/figures/index.php
Attentional blink task
M
A
P
X
U
target
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Lag
Targ
et a
ccur
acy
(%)Q distractorQ
APCLWNXQB
Look for “X” – Difficult version
APCLWNXQB
Look for “X” – Easy version
General Method
• IV– Emotionality of the
distractor– Number of items
between the distractor and the target (Lag)
• DV– Percentage of target
accuracy
filler
distractor
filler
target
filler
filler
Lag
89*$#!@
tragedy
82&{/;#
banana
#”;!<%@
<?*$6!@
Distractor
Target
75 ms
Does task-irrelevant emotional information capture attention when semantic processing is required?
• Emotional distractor caused more impairment on target detection
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 6
Lag
Pre
cen
tag
e o
f ta
rget
acc
ura
cy (
%)
Emo distractor
Neu distractor
Does task-irrelevant emotional information capture attention when perceptual processing is required?
89*$#!@
tragedy
82&{/;#
BANANA
#”;!<%@
<?*$6!@
Target
Distractor
75 ms
• Emotional distractor did not cause more interference on target detection
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 6
Lag
Per
cen
tag
e o
f T
arg
et A
ccu
racy
(%
)
Emo distractor
Neu distractor
Is semantic processing necessary for emotional distractors to capture more attention?
89*$#!@
tragedy
82&{/;#
heir
#”;!<%@
<?*$6!@
Target
Distractor
75 ms
pearheirmayorprayersparestair
• Emotional distractor did not cause more interference on target detection
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 6
Lag
Per
cen
tag
e o
f T
arg
et A
ccu
racy
(%
)
Emo distractor
Neu distractor
Possible role of difference in processing load
• Processes involved when participants perform the AB task– Task-relevant processing: Semantic,
perceptual or phonological judgment task– Task-irrelevant processing: Emotionality of the
distractor
• It is plausible that task-irrelevant processing only takes place when task-relevant processing requires low load
• Use different types of categorisation task to investigate this possible confound
89*$#!@
tragedy
82&{/;#
banana
#”;!<%@
<?*$6!@
Distractor
Target
Is this a fruit word? No, move on to the
next item
tragedy
Is this a fruit word?
Design
• Semantic – Fruit or not
• Perceptual– Uppercase or not
• Phonological– Rhymes with “pear” or not
+
tragedy
#”;!<%@
Judge
75 ms
Words leading to “No” response
Emotional and neutral distractor words used in previous experiments
Words leading to “Yes” responseSemantic: 28 Fruit wordsPerceptual: 26 Fruit + 2 non-FruitPhonological: 28 words rhyme with “pear”
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
perceptual semantic phonological
Type of task
RT
(m
s) emo
neuyes
50
60
70
80
90
100
perceptual semantic phonological
Type of taskA
cc
ura
cy
(%
)
emo
neu
yes
Possible role of individual difference
• Within-subject manipulation of processing requirement to examine whether or not the results were due to sampling bias
89*$#!@
tragedy
82&{/;#
Distractor
banana
Semantic Target
BANANA
Perceptual Target
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 6
LagP
erce
nta
ge
of
Tar
get
Acc
ura
cy (
%)
Emo distractor
Neu distractor
Perceptual
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 6
Lag
Per
cen
tag
e o
f T
arg
et A
ccu
racy
(%
)
Emo distractor
Neu distractor
Semantic
Interim Summary
• Task-irrelevant emotional information do not always capture attention under attentional blink settings
• Attentional capture by task-irrelevant emotional information is modulated by semantic processing
Conclusion
• Task-irrelevant emotional information does not always affect attentional process
• Two factors modulates attentional capture by task-irrelevant emotional information– Ease to extract the emotional information– Strategy
Thank you for listening
– Alan Baddeley– Andy Young
– Yei-Yu Yeh– Yu-Ting Wang
Is semantic information available?
• Investigate to what extent the emotional distractors were processed when they did not cause more interference on target detection
• Manipulate the semantic association between the distractor and the target word. But participants were told to look for a word in uppercase as in Exp 2
89*$#!@
tragedy
82&{/;#
ACCIDENT
#”;!<%@
<?*$6!@
Distractor
Semantic associate
Target
89*$#!@
tragedy
82&{/;#
ROUND
#”;!<%@
<?*$6!@
Distractor
Target
Non-semantic associate
Neutral distractor Emotional distractor
30
50
70
90
1 3 8
Lag
Per
cen
tag
e o
f ta
rget
acc
ura
cy (
%)
SEM
NON
30
50
70
90
1 3 8
Lag
Per
cen
tag
e o
f ta
rget
acc
ura
cy (
%)
SEM
NON
Semantic information was temporarily available and yet emotional distractor did not cause more interference on target detection
Why semantic processing requirement is necessary?
• Task-relevant semantic information is more durable
• Participants are more aware of the semantic information of the distractor
Design
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3
Lag
Pre
cen
tag
e o
f ta
rget
acc
ura
cy (
%)
High awareness
Additional Neutral word
Emo or Neu distractor
Fruit word
Low awareness
AdditionalNeutral word
Emo or Neu distractor
Fruit word
Filler
Filler
Results
High awareness
60
70
80
90
100
1 3 8
Lag
Per
cen
tag
e o
f T
arg
et A
ccu
racy
(%
)
emo
neu
Low awareness
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
1 3 8
LagP
erce
nta
ge
of
Tar
get
Acc
ura
cy (
%)
emo
neu