When It’s Not Worn on the Face: Trait Anxiety and Attention to Neutral Faces Semantically Linked to Threat

Vision Pub Date : 2024-03-19 DOI:10.3390/vision8010015
K. Curby, Jessica A. Collins
{"title":"When It’s Not Worn on the Face: Trait Anxiety and Attention to Neutral Faces Semantically Linked to Threat","authors":"K. Curby, Jessica A. Collins","doi":"10.3390/vision8010015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While our direct observations of the features or behaviours of the stimuli around us tell us much about them (e.g., should they be feared?), the origin of much of our knowledge is often untethered from directly observable properties (e.g., through what we have learned or have been told about them, or “semantic knowledge”). Here, we ask whether otherwise neutral visual stimuli that participants learn to associate with emotional qualities in the lab cause the stimuli to be attended in a similar way as stimuli whose emotional qualities can be discerned through their visual properties. In Experiment 1, participants learned to associate negative or neutral characteristics with neutral faces, which then served as valid or invalid spatial cues to targets in an attentional disengagement paradigm. The performance of participants higher in trait anxiety was consistent with attentional avoidance of faces with learned negative associations, while participants lower in trait anxiety showed a general response slowing in trials with these stimuli, compared to those with neutral associations. In contrast, in Experiment 2, using (visually) expressive (angry) faces, the performance of participants higher in trait anxiety was consistent with difficulty disengaging from visually threatening faces, while the performance of those with lower trait anxiety appeared unaffected by the valence of the stimuli. These findings suggest that (1) emotionality acquired indirectly via learned semantic knowledge impacts how attention is allocated to face stimuli, and this impact is influenced by trait anxiety, and (2) there are differences in the effects of stimulus emotionality depending on whether it is acquired indirectly or directly via the perceptual features of the stimulus. These differences are discussed in the context of the variability of attention bias effects reported in the literature and the time course of impacts of emotionality on stimulus processing.","PeriodicalId":23649,"journal":{"name":"Vision","volume":"66 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vision","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/vision8010015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While our direct observations of the features or behaviours of the stimuli around us tell us much about them (e.g., should they be feared?), the origin of much of our knowledge is often untethered from directly observable properties (e.g., through what we have learned or have been told about them, or “semantic knowledge”). Here, we ask whether otherwise neutral visual stimuli that participants learn to associate with emotional qualities in the lab cause the stimuli to be attended in a similar way as stimuli whose emotional qualities can be discerned through their visual properties. In Experiment 1, participants learned to associate negative or neutral characteristics with neutral faces, which then served as valid or invalid spatial cues to targets in an attentional disengagement paradigm. The performance of participants higher in trait anxiety was consistent with attentional avoidance of faces with learned negative associations, while participants lower in trait anxiety showed a general response slowing in trials with these stimuli, compared to those with neutral associations. In contrast, in Experiment 2, using (visually) expressive (angry) faces, the performance of participants higher in trait anxiety was consistent with difficulty disengaging from visually threatening faces, while the performance of those with lower trait anxiety appeared unaffected by the valence of the stimuli. These findings suggest that (1) emotionality acquired indirectly via learned semantic knowledge impacts how attention is allocated to face stimuli, and this impact is influenced by trait anxiety, and (2) there are differences in the effects of stimulus emotionality depending on whether it is acquired indirectly or directly via the perceptual features of the stimulus. These differences are discussed in the context of the variability of attention bias effects reported in the literature and the time course of impacts of emotionality on stimulus processing.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
当它不戴在脸上时:特质焦虑和对与威胁语义相关的中性面孔的注意
虽然我们对周围刺激物的特征或行为的直接观察会告诉我们很多关于它们的信息(例如,它们是否应该被惧怕?),但我们很多知识的来源往往与可直接观察到的属性无关(例如,通过我们所学到的或别人告诉我们的关于它们的知识,或 "语义知识")。在这里,我们要问的是,如果参与者在实验室中学会将中性的视觉刺激与情绪品质联系起来,那么这些刺激是否会与那些情绪品质可以通过视觉特性辨别出来的刺激以类似的方式被注意到。在实验一中,参与者学会了将负面或中性特征与中性面孔联系起来,然后在注意力脱离范式中将中性面孔作为目标的有效或无效空间线索。特质焦虑程度较高的参与者的表现与注意力回避学习到的负面联想的面孔一致,而特质焦虑程度较低的参与者与中性联想的面孔相比,在有这些刺激的试验中表现出普遍的反应迟钝。相反,在实验 2 中,使用(视觉)表现性(愤怒)面孔时,特质焦虑程度较高的参与者的表现与难以脱离视觉威胁面孔的情况一致,而特质焦虑程度较低的参与者的表现似乎不受刺激物情绪的影响。这些研究结果表明:(1) 通过学习语义知识间接获得的情绪性会影响注意力对人脸刺激的分配,而这种影响会受到特质焦虑的影响;(2) 刺激的情绪性是间接获得的还是直接通过刺激的知觉特征获得的,其影响存在差异。我们将结合文献中报道的注意力偏差效应的变化以及情绪性对刺激加工的影响的时间过程来讨论这些差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparison of Eye Axial Length Measurements Taken Using Partial Coherence Interferometry and OCT Biometry The Effect of the Zonular Fiber Angle of Insertion on Accommodation Perceptual Biases in the Interpretation of Non-Rigid Shape Transformations from Motion A New Model of a Macular Buckle and a Refined Surgical Technique for the Treatment of Myopic Traction Maculopathy Eyes on Memory: Pupillometry in Encoding and Retrieval
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1