Top

Gepubliceerd in:

19-04-2018 | Original Article

Audiomotor integration of angry and happy prosodies

Auteurs: Sélim Yahia Coll, Sascha Frühholz, Didier Grandjean

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 8/2019

Abstract

Different parts of our brain code the perceptual features and actions related to an object, causing a binding problem: how does the brain discriminate the information of a particular event from the features of other events? Hommel (1998) suggested the event file concept: an episodic memory trace binding perceptual and motor information pertaining to an object. By adapting Hommel’s paradigm to emotional faces in a previous study (Coll & Grandjean, 2016), we demonstrated that emotion could take part in an event file with motor responses. We also postulate such binding to occur with emotional prosodies, due to an equal importance of automatic reactions to such events. However, contrary to static emotional expressions, prosodies develop through time and temporal dynamics may influence the integration of these stimuli. To investigate this effect, we developed three studies with task-relevant and -irrelevant emotional prosodies. Our results showed that emotion could interact with motor responses when it was task relevant. When it was task irrelevant, this integration was also observed, but only when participants were led to focus on the details of the voices, that is, in a loudness task. No such binding was observed when participants performed a location task, in which emotion could be ignored. These results indicate that emotional binding is not restricted to visual information but is a general phenomenon allowing organisms to integrate emotion and action in an efficient and adaptive way. We discuss the influence of temporal dynamics in the emotion–action binding and the implication of Hommel’s paradigm.

vorige artikel Cross-modal decoupling in temporal attention between audition and touch

volgende artikel Gestalt grouping cues can improve filtering performance in visual working memory

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

We report the effect sizes according to the approach of Nakagawa and Schielzeth (2013), which is implemented in the MuMIn R package. The authors developed their approach on the basis of 2 indicators, a marginal and conditional R² (R²_m and R²_c, respectively), allowing comparability with standard methods, while taking into account the variance explained by random effects. R²_m is the variance explained by the fixed factors, whereas R²_c is the variance explained by the entire model (both fixed and random effects). We calculated these variances for each effect in our statistical models.

The mean intensity ratings for anger, happy, and neutral prosodies of Fruhholz et al. (2014) were 51.92 (SD = 5.63), 48.30 (SD = 10.94) and 21.89 (SD = 3.82), respectively. These prosodies were recognized as representing anger at 55.91 (SD = 10.86), 7.64 (SD = 4.52) and 2.85 (SD = 1.96), in average respectively. They were also recognized as representing happiness at 0.83 (SD = 1.53), 34.74 (SD = 21.53) and 0.25 (SD = 0.48), in average respectively. Finally, they were recognized as representing neutrality at 5.57 (SD = 3.94), 8.96 (SD = 9.69) and 70.11 (SD = 6.50), in average respectively.

Algazi, V. R., Duda, R. O., Thompson, D. M., & Avendano, C. (2001). The CIPIC HRTF database. In IEEE Workshop on Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics. New Paltz (pp. 99–102).

Bolker, B. M., Brooks, M. E., Clark, C. J., Geange, S. W., Poulsen, J. R., Stevens, M. H. H., & White, J. S. S. (2009). Generalized linear mixed models: A practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24(3), 127–135.CrossRefPubMed

Burra, N., Barras, C., Coll, S. Y., & Kerzel, D. (2016). Electrophysiological evidence for attentional capture by irrelevant angry facial expressions. Biological Psychology, 120, 69–80.CrossRefPubMed

Coelho, C. M., Cloete, S., & Wallis, G. (2010). The face-in-the-crowd effect: When angry faces are just cross(es). Journal of Vision, 10(1), 7.CrossRefPubMed

Coll, S. C., & Grandjean, D. (2016). Visuomotor integration of relevant and irrelevant angry and fearful facial expressions. Acta Psychologica, 170, 226–238.CrossRefPubMed

Colzato, L. S., van Wouwe, N. C., & Hommel, B. (2007). Feature binding and affect: Emotional modulation of visuo-motor integration. Neuropsychologia, 45(2), 440–446.CrossRefPubMed

Costanzo, F. S., Markel, N. N., & Costanzo, P. R. (1969). Voice quality profile and perceived emotion. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 16(3), 267–270.CrossRef

Eder, A. B., & Klauer, K. C. (2007). Common valence coding in action and evaluation: Affective blindness towards response-compatible stimuli. Cognition and Emotion, 21(6), 1297–1322.CrossRef

Eder, A. B., & Klauer, K. C. (2009). A common-coding account of the bidirectional evaluation–behavior link. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 138(2), 218–235.CrossRefPubMed

Eder, A. B., Musseler, J., & Hommel, B. (2012). The structure of affective action representations: Temporal binding of affective response codes. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 76(1), 111–118.CrossRefPubMed

Fox, E., & Damjanovic, L. (2006). The eyes are sufficient to produce a threat superiority effect. Emotion, 6(3), 534–539.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Frijda, N. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Frijda, N. (2007). The laws of emotion. Mahwath: Erlbaum.

Frings, C., Rothermund, K., & Wentura, D. (2007). Distractor repetitions retrieve previous responses to targets. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(10), 1367–1377.CrossRefPubMed

Fruhholz, S., Klaas, H. S., Patel, S., & Grandjean, D. (2014). Talking in fury: The cortico-subcortical network underlying angry vocalizations. Cerebral Cortex, 25(9), 2752–2762.CrossRefPubMed

Giesen, C., & Rothermund, K. (2011). Affective matching moderates S-R binding. Cognition & Emotion, 25(2), 342–350.CrossRef

Grandjean, D., Sander, D., & Scherer, K. R. (2008). Conscious emotional experience emerges as a function of multilevel, appraisal-driven response synchronization. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(2), 484–495.CrossRefPubMed

Green, P., & Macleod, C. J. (2016). SIMR: An R package for power analysis of generalised linear mixed models by simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(4), 493–498.CrossRef

Hansen, C. H., & Hansen, R. D. (1988). Finding the face in the crowd: An anger superiority effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 917–924.CrossRefPubMed

Hommel, B. (1995). Stimulus–response compatibility and the Simon effect: Toward an empirical clarification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(4), 764–775.

Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus–response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5(1–2), 183–216.CrossRef

Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(11), 494–500.CrossRefPubMed

Hommel, B., Memelink, J., Zmigrod, S., & Colzato, L. S. (2014). Attentional control of the creation and retrieval of stimulus–response bindings. Psychological Research, 78(4), 520–538.CrossRefPubMed

Huttar, G. L. (1968). Relations between prosodic variables and emotions in normal American English utterances. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 11(3), 481–487.CrossRef

Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. J. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 175–219.CrossRefPubMed

Kensinger, E. A., & Schacter, D. L. (2006). When the Red Sox shocked the Yankees: Comparing negative and positive memories. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13(5), 757–763.CrossRefPubMed

Lang, P., & Bradley, M. (2010). Emotion and the motivational brain. Biological Psychology, 84(3), 437–450.CrossRefPubMed

Lavender, T., & Hommel, B. (2007). Affect and action: Towards an event-coding account. Cognition and Emotion, 21(6), 1270–1296.CrossRef

Ledoux, J. E. (1994). Emotion, memory and the brain. Scientific American, 270(6), 50–57.CrossRefPubMed

McCulloch, C. E. (2003). Generalized linear mixed models. NSF-CBMS Regional Conference Series in Probability and Statistics 7. Beachwood: Institute of Mathematical Statistics.

Memelink, J., & Hommel, B. (2013). Intentional weighting: A basic principle in cognitive control. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 77(3), 249–259.CrossRefPubMed

Moeller, B., & Frings, C. (2014). Attention meets binding: Only attended distractors are used for the retrieval of event files. Attention, Perception and Psychophysics, 76(4), 959–978.CrossRefPubMed

Moeller, B., Frings, C., & Pfister, R. (2016). The structure of distractor–response bindings: Conditions for configural and elemental integration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(4), 464–479.PubMed

Morey, R. D., & Rouder, J. N. (2011). Bayes factor approaches for testing interval null hypotheses. Psychological Methods, 16(4), 406–419.CrossRefPubMed

Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4(2), 133–142.CrossRef

Niedenthal, P. (2007). Embodying emotion. Science, 316(5827), 1002–1005.CrossRefPubMed

Ohman, A., Lundqvist, D., & Esteves, F. (2001). The face in the crowd revisited: A threat advantage with schematic stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 381–396.CrossRefPubMed

Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97–113.CrossRefPubMed

Phaf, R. H., Mohr, S. E., Rotteveel, M., & Wicherts, J. M. (2014). Approach, avoidance, and affect: A meta-analysis of approach-avoidance tendencies in manual reaction time tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 378.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Pinkham, A. E., Griffin, M., Baron, R., Sasson, N. J., & Gur, R. C. (2010). The face in the crowd effect: Anger superiority when using real faces and multiple identities. Emotion, 10(1), 141–146.CrossRefPubMed

Scherer, K. R. (2001). Appraisal considered as a process of multilevel sequential checking. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 92–120). New York: Oxford University Press.

Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S–R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51(3), 300–304.CrossRefPubMed

Talarico, J. M., & Rubin, D. C. (2003). Confidence, not consistency, characterizes flashbulb memories. Psychological Science, 14(5), 455–461.CrossRefPubMed

Treisman, A. (1996). The binding problem. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 6(2), 171–178.CrossRefPubMed

Waszak, F., & Pholulamdeth, V. (2009). Episodic S–R bindings and emotion: About the influence of positive and negative action effects on stimulus–response associations. Experimental Brain Research, 194(3), 489–494.CrossRefPubMed

Weymar, M., Low, A., Ohman, A., & Hamm, A. O. (2011). The face is more than its parts: Brain dynamics of enhanced spatial attention to schematic threat. NeuroImage, 58(3), 946–954.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Zmigrod, S., & Hommel, B. (2009). Auditory event files: Integrating auditory perception and action planning. Attention Perception and Psychophysics, 71(2), 352–362.CrossRef

Zmigrod, S., & Hommel, B. (2010). Temporal dynamics of unimodal and multimodal feature binding. Attention Perception and Psychophysics, 72(1), 142–152.CrossRef

Zmigrod, S., Spape, M., & Hommel, B. (2009). Intermodal event files: Integrating features across vision, audition, taction, and action. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 73(5), 674–684.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Audiomotor integration of angry and happy prosodies
Auteurs: Sélim Yahia Coll
Sascha Frühholz
Didier Grandjean
Publicatiedatum: 19-04-2018
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 8/2019
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1020-9

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 8/2019

Increased cognitive control after task conflict? Investigating the N-3 effect in task switching

Cross-modal decoupling in temporal attention between audition and touch

Person information facilitates memory for face identity

Deep, effortless concentration: re-examining the flow concept and exploring relations with inattention, absorption, and personality

Olfactory perception and blindness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Priming by motivationally salient distractors produces hemispheric asymmetries in visual processing