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)
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
Does task-irrelevant emotional
information capture attention?
NEU
EMO-T
EMO-D
750
730
Reaction Time (ms)
710
690
670
NEU
650
EMO-T
630
EMO-D
610
590
570
550
4
8
Set Size
16
Does task-irrelevant emotional
information capture attention when
it is more salient in the display?
NEU
EMO-T
EMO-D
640
Reaction Time (ms)
620
600
NEU
580
EMO-T
560
EMO-D
540
520
500
4
8
Set Size
16
Does task-irrelevant emotional
information capture attention when
the task is more difficult?
NEU
EMO-T
EMO-D
1600
Reaction Time (ms)
1400
1200
NEU
EMO-T
EMO-D
1000
800
600
4
8
Set Size
16
What if task-irrelevant emotional
information is always indicative of
target location?
NEU
EMO-T
SURPRISE TRIAL
1500
1600
1400
1300
1200
NEU
EMO-T
1000
Reaction Time (ms)
Reaction Time (ms)
1400
1200
NEU
1100
neu
EMO-T
1000
emo-t
900
800
800
700
600
600
4
8
16
set size
65% of the participants got
the surprise trial wrong
4
8
Set Size
16
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
100
M
Q
Q
distractor
A
P
X
target
Target accuracy (%)
90
80
70
60
50
40
U
30
1
2
3
4
5
Lag
6
7
8
Look for “X” – Difficult version
C
N
A
B
L
W
Q
P
X
Look for “X” – Easy version
W
C
A
X
B
L
Q
N
P
General Method
• IV
– Emotionality of the
distractor
– Number of items
between the distractor
and the target (Lag)
• DV
– Percentage of target
accuracy
filler
distractor
Lag
filler
target
filler
filler
Does task-irrelevant emotional
information capture attention when
semantic processing is required?
75 ms
89*$#!@
tragedy
Distractor
82&{/;#
banana
Target
#”;!<%@
<?*$6!@
Precentage of target accuracy (%)
100
90
80
70
Emo distractor
Neu distractor
60
50
40
30
1
3
2
Lag
6
• Emotional distractor
caused more
impairment on target
detection
Does task-irrelevant emotional
information capture attention when
perceptual processing is required?
75 ms
89*$#!@
tragedy
Distractor
82&{/;#
BANANA
Target
#”;!<%@
<?*$6!@
100
Percentage of Target Accuracy (%)
90
80
70
Emo distractor
Neu distractor
60
50
40
30
1
2
3
Lag
6
• Emotional distractor
did not cause more
interference on target
detection
Is semantic processing necessary
for emotional distractors to capture
more attention?
75 ms
89*$#!@
tragedy
pear
heir
mayor
prayer
spare
stair
Distractor
82&{/;#
heir
Target
#”;!<%@
<?*$6!@
100
Percentage of Target Accuracy (%)
90
80
70
Emo distractor
Neu distractor
60
50
40
30
1
2
3
Lag
6
• Emotional distractor
did not cause more
interference on target
detection
Possible role of difference in
processing load
• Processes involved when participants
perform the AB task
– Task-relevant processing: Semantic,
perceptual or phonological judgment task
– Task-irrelevant processing: Emotionality of the
distractor
• It is plausible that task-irrelevant
processing only takes place when taskrelevant processing requires low load
• Use different types of categorisation task
to investigate this possible confound
Is this a fruit word?
No, move on to the
next item
Is this a fruit
word?
89*$#!@
tragedy
Distractor
82&{/;#
banana
Target
#”;!<%@
<?*$6!@
tragedy
Design
75 ms
• Semantic
+
– Fruit or not
tragedy
#”;!<%@
Judge
Words leading to “No” response
Emotional and neutral distractor
words used in previous
experiments
• Perceptual
– Uppercase or not
• Phonological
– Rhymes with “pear” or not
Words leading to “Yes” response
Semantic: 28 Fruit words
Perceptual: 26 Fruit + 2 non-Fruit
Phonological: 28 words rhyme
with “pear”
100
700
600
90
emo
neu
yes
400
300
Accuracy (%)
RT (ms)
500
80
emo
neu
yes
70
200
60
100
0
50
perceptual
semantic
Type of task
phonological
perceptual
semantic
Type of task
phonological
Possible role of individual difference
• Within-subject manipulation of processing
requirement to examine whether or not the
results were due to sampling bias
89*$#!@
tragedy
Distractor
82&{/;#
banana
Semantic Target
BANANA
Perceptual Target
100
90
90
80
70
Emo distractor
Neu distractor
60
50
40
30
Percentage of Target Accuracy (%)
Percentage of Target Accuracy (%)
100
80
70
Emo distractor
Neu distractor
60
50
40
30
1
2
3
6
Lag
Semantic
1
2
3
6
Lag
Perceptual
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*$#!@
89*$#!@
tragedy
Distractor
82&{/;#
tragedy
Distractor
82&{/;#
ACCIDENT
Target
#”;!<%@
<?*$6!@
Semantic associate
ROUND
Target
#”;!<%@
<?*$6!@
Non-semantic associate
70
SEM
NON
50
Percentage of target accuracy (%)
Percentage of target accuracy (%)
90
90
70
SEM
NON
50
30
30
1
3
8
Lag
Neutral distractor
1
3
8
Lag
Emotional distractor
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
Additional
Neutral word
Precentage of target accuracy (%)
100
90
Additional
Neutral word
80
Filler
Filler
70
Emo or Neu
distractor
60
Emo or Neu
distractor
50
40
30
1
2
3
Lag
Fruit word
High awareness
Fruit word
Low awareness
Results
100
95
90
emo
80
neu
70
60
Percentage of Target Accuracy (%)
Percentage of Target Accuracy (%)
100
90
85
emo
80
neu
75
70
65
60
1
3
8
Lag
High awareness
1
3
8
Lag
Low awareness