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